Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the London Midland and Scottish Railway "; presented by Mr. T. Johnston and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon the next Sitting Day; and to be printed [Bill 45].

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Cadet Force

Sir Douglas Hacking: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the result of his review of the adequacy of existing Army cadet grants?

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): An increase in the grants and free services to the Army Cadet Force has been approved and details will be communicated to county cadet committees very soon.

Auxiliary Territorial Service

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Secretary of State for War why boys of 16 years of age are invited to join the Home Guard for the purpose of replacing Auxiliary Territorial Service personnel on the anti-aircraft batteries, when there are already reliable women working with the Home Guard willing to undertake these duties?

Sir J. Grigg: Auxiliary Territorial Service personnel employed with anti-aircraft batteries are needed during the daytime when Home Guard personnel are not normally available, and there is no intention of replacing them.

Dr. Summerskill: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman use the available women

who are now attached to the Home Guard and might have more spare time instead of using boys of 16 who are also not available during the daytime?

Sir J. Grigg: The hon. Member, I think, cannot have heard my answer. I said that there is no intention of replacing A.T.S. personnel serving with anti-aircraft batteries.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that children are recognised as legal dependants of widows, they will be so recognised for service allowances when the widows join the Auxiliary Territorial Service?

Sir J. Grigg: The children of widows who join the Auxiliary Territorial Service are recognized for service allowances in so far that Army dependants' allowance may be issued in respect of them, subject to the usual conditions governing this allowance.

Miss Ward: Are they not issued under a separate order and not as a right, the casse of ordinary families?

Sir J. Grigg: They are certainly dealt with as dependants' allowances and not as family allowances, but I will certainly look into that point. It merits examination.

Miss Ward: It would be a great satisfaction if my right hon. Friend could carry out that undertaking.

Vegetable Crops, Requisitioned Houses

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that vegetables planted by troops are now rotting in the gardens of requisitioned houses, at a place indicated to him, despite the assurance sent to the hon. Member for South Croydon on 30th July; and what steps he proposes to take to rectify the matter?

Sir J. Grigg: I have received a detailed report on the vegetable crops referred to by my hon. Friend. Caterpillars have been prevalent in the district and have eaten some of the vegetables. Although no troops have been in occupation in the requisitioned houses for some weeks I am, however, satisfied that the arrangements made to gather the crop have


enabled Army units in the neighbourhood to make full use of the various vegetables grown in the gardens.

Sir H. Williams: Having regard to the fact that what my right hon. Friend says conflicts with what I saw a week last Sunday, will he have another report?

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. I have a full report from the Command agricultural officer, who has visited the site with the agricultural officer for West Sussex. I may say that the total area of gardens to which my hon. Friend refers is rather less than one-third of an acre.

Mr. Hannah: What caterpillar eats potatoes?

Sir J. Grigg: These are cabbages.

Brigadiers and Colonels (Pensions)

Lieut.-Colonel Wickham: asked the Secretary of State for War how many brigadiers at present serving, and who have held that appointment for 18 months or longer, are entitled to a colonel's maximum pension and how many to a lieutenant-colonel's pension?

Sir J. Grigg: Of the Regular Army combatant officers at present serving on the active list who have held the rank of brigadier for 18 months or more, 70 per cent. hold the substantive rank of colonel and 30 per cent. the substantive or war substantive rank of lieutenant-colonel. Of the former, slightly under a third would be eligible for the colonel's maximum rate of retired pay if retired now, and of the latter two-thirds would be eligible for the lieutenant-colonel's maximum rate. It is not in the public interest to give actual numbers. As the rate of retired pay varies with age, service and substantive or war substantive rank on retirement, the rates of retired pay eventually awarded to these officers may be considerably in excess of their present entitlements.

Lieut.-Colonel Wickham: Does not the present position conflict with the recently established principle whereby officers enjoy substantive rank immediately below the rank which they held temporarily for a certain period?

Sir J. Grigg: I know that my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind the special case of brigadiers, which is not a rank, and

the substantive rank for brigadier is therefore lieutenant-colonel and not colonel. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend has that question in mind, and I shall be glad to discuss it with him at his convenience.

Lieut.-Colonel Wickham: asked the Secretary of State for War how many substantive colonels who have earned the colonel's maximum pension have been retired and their services retained during the period 3rd September, 1939, to 3rd October, 1942; and how many brigadiers have been retired as lieutenant-colonels and their services retained as brigadiers during the same period?

Sir J. Grigg: Of the substantive combatant colonels retired during the period 3rd September, 1939, to 3rd October, 194a, with the colonel's maximum rate of retired pay, 38 have been re-employed since retirement, but the re-employment has not in all cases been continuous from date of retirement. One officer has been retired as a lieutenant-colonel when holding a brigadier's appointment and reemployed since retirement as a brigadier.

Pay Offices (Men of Military Age)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of men of military age engaged in work in the Army Pay Offices; and whether the work of such men can be performed by women?

Sir J. Grigg: It would not be in the public interest for me to give the actual numbers. There are, however, nearly as many women as men now engaged in work in Army Pay Offices. The proportion of women is being increased in so far as suitably qualified members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service and civilians can be found. But Pay Offices with Forces overseas must be staffed by men and in order to meet this commitment a substantial proportion of those engaged in work in Pay Offices at home must be men.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Why cannot men over 60 be any longer employed in the War Office even if they have served in the last war, in view of the fact that both Foch and Hindenburg were at their height when they were nearly 70?

Sir J. Grigg: I think that my hon. and gallant Friend's generalisation is much too sweeping.

Mr. Astor: Are not the A.T.S. capable of doing this work in places like Cairo and Jerusalem as well as in London?

Mr. Thorne: Do the women pay clerks receive the pay recognised by the National Union of Clerks?

Sir J. Grigg: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. Guy: Were not a large percentage of these men placed in a low medical category? Owing to the persistent questioning on this point, are not men passed A1 by the Military Tribunal after a period?

Sir J. Grigg: I know nothing about the second part of the question, but I should think it extremely doubtful. It is the case that only about one quarter of the men in the Pay Offices are in category A.

Mr. Astor: Will my right hon. Friend answer my question?

Sir J. Grigg: Not without notice.

Officers' Dependants' Allotments

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he will give the full recommendations of the inter-departmental committee in regard to their decision that the rate of allotment pay for dependants of officers, including officer prisoners of war, should be fixed at two-sevenths of the officer's pay; on what evidence this decision was based; and what was the cost of living when this inter-departmental committee reported;
(2) whether he is aware that the allotment of two-sevenths of a missing officer's pay to his dependants has been found in many cases to be quite inadequate, even when added to family lodging allowance; whether he is aware that many wives of officers reported missing at Singapore are suffering considerable hardship, in consequence of the inadequacy of this allotment; and whether he will make some more generous provision for these ladies?

Sir J. Grigg: All an officer's emoluments, including family lodging allowance, are paid direct to him, and he makes his own arrangements for his family's support whether he is serving at home or abroad. Unlike other ranks an officer can draw family lodging allowance without making any compulsory allotment from his own pay. When an officer is notified as missing his pay and family lodging allowance continue to be credited to him

for four weeks and any arrangements that he has made continue as before. At the end of that period the officer is no longer credited with pay and allowances, but a payment is made to the family equivalent to family lodging allowance plus two days' pay a week. I have no evidence to show that this supplement is unrepresentative of the allotments made to their families by the majority of officers. I will, however, look further into this and I should be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend would send me particulars of typical cases which have been brought to his notice. When an officer is notified as a prisoner of war pay and family lodging allowance are credited to his account and any arrangements that he has made can continue. To meet the case where there are no such arrangements or they have broken down the War Office has power to divert family lodging allowance and pay to meet the needs of the family.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many cases officers who have been making an allotment of much more than two-sevenths of their pay now find their wives in England credited with only two-sevenths, and is he further aware that there are many cases of wives who are in considerable distress on account of this very inadequate allotment and are at the same time receiving no news of their husbands?

Sir J. Grigg: I have asked my hon. and gallant Friend to be good enough to send me particulars of typical cases which have been brought to his notice in order that I may look into the matter.

Mr. Bellenger: Could not these cases be dealt with by the wives of officers drawing family allowances through the Post Office in the same way as the wives of other ranks?

Home Guard

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to provide all works units of the Home Guard with greatcoats before the winter weather sets in?

Sir J. Grigg: Over 91 per cent. of the members of the Home Guard now have greatcoats. With the exception of some recently joined recruits who are awaiting fitting all the rest have capes.

Mr. Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentle-, man not aware that in Middlesbrough in


some of these units, and very old units, there are still as many as 50 per cent. without these greatcoats; and that this is very discouraging to men who are trying to carry out their duties with some enthusiasm? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter?

Sir J. Grigg: I am surprised to hear that the percentage is anything like so high as 50 per cent. in Middlesbrough, and I will certainly look into that special case. I have been assured that every Home Guard whose duties lie out of doors will have a greatcoat as soon as it can be arranged.

Mr. Edwards: I had those figures given to me only yesterday.

Sir H. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the capes are allotted? One commanding officer that I know of is in great difficulty. All his men work outside, and he has got 10 per cent. of capes and does not know to whom to allot them.

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there are now nearly 250 units of Women's Home Defence in towns, villages, factories, banks, universities and Government Departments, most of these working with the Home Guard and undertaking duties which will release men for combatant service; and, in view of this, will he consider granting them official recognition?

Sir J. Grigg: I am aware that there are many useful services of a non-combatant character that women can render in connection with the Home Guard, and arrangements for placing assistance of this kind on an official footing are at present under discussion.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made in directing suitable civilians into the Home Guard; and what number has been so directed up to 30th September?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): As stated in reply to a similar Question by my hon. Friend on nth September, it would not be in the public interest to make known the number of civilians directed to enrol in the Home Guard, but

I may say that the number up to 3rd October, amounted to some four-fifths of the demands notified to the Ministry by the Army Commands.

Sir T. Moore: What possible danger can their be in publishing this information? If there were only two men and a boy it would not matter, but if there are 2,000,000 men it means that it is a serious menace to Hitler?

Mr. Tomlinson: The danger is exactly the same as it was on nth September.

Canteen, Bessacarr, Doncaster

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Secretary of State for War, to what extent the withdrawal of the permit from the services free canteen at Bessacarr, near Doncaster, is due to the organisation supplying food to service convoy drivers, &c, free of charge; is he aware that the withdrawal of the military permit has automatically cancelled the allocation of rationed food by the Minister of Food; and whether this form of restriction may be regarded as a new general principle to be applied to all free service canteens?

Sir J. Grigg: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that the case of this canteen has been reconsidered and it will be allowed to continue as before.

Mr. Walkden: Thank you.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the continued complaints of lack of delivery of food and clothing parcels to prisoners of war in Italy, he can give any information?

Sir J. Grigg: I am informed that supplies are in general reaching the established camps regularly. If the hon. Member will let me have particulars of the complaints to which she refers, I will look into the cases.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether in order to allay the anxiety of relatives regarding the fate of Army personnel in the Far East, servicemen who have returned to this country have been asked to furnish any detailed information they possess?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir; and as opportunities for collecting such information


were more likely to arise in India and Australia, the authorities in those countries have been asked to collect it also.

Miss Ward: As there seems to be very little information in this country on the point, have those who have arrived home been asked to supply information? Will my right hon. Friend say how full the inquiry has been into this matter?

Sir J. Grigg: The personnel who have arrived home are, I understand, almost entirely civilians.

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for War on what grounds and on what subject Dr. Joad was allowed to address prisoners of war; and what visits by other than Red Cross representatives or those of a Protecting Power are permitted under the Hague Convention?

Sir J. Grigg: My hon. and gallant Friend appears to have been misinformed. No permit has been issued to Dr. Joad to visit or address prisoners of war. Article 2 of the Hague Convention lays down that prisoners of war must be protected from public curiosity. There is no other clause in the Convention limiting the right of visiting camps to representatives of the Protecting Power, and of societies for the relief of prisoners of war such as Red Cross Societies.

Sir J. Lucas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that reporters, the town clerk and the chairman of the meeting say that Dr. Joad emphatically stated that he had himself visited the camp, and can my right hon. Friend find out the truth?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir, I am very well aware of that, but I am not Dr. Joad's keeper.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he will ascertain through the Protecting Power whether the German authorities are holding back letters to and from prisoners in Oflag IX A.H. in reprisal for an attempted escape, as such action would be contrary to the Geneva Convention;
(2) whether he will make inquiries into the non-receipt of letters and parcels at Stalag VIII B, where it is thought that these are being held up by the German authorities in reprisal for alleged hold-up

by the British authorities of the correspondence of German prisoners; and whether he will make representations through the Protecting Power?

Sir J. Grigg: The German Government have recently informed the Protecting Power that restrictions imposed on the mail of British prisoners of war have been abolished.

Sir A. Knox: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this concerns not only those two camps but that since this Question was put down I have had letters from about a dozen relatives of prisoners of war in other camps, and apparently this state of affairs has been very general throughout Germany?

Sir J. Grigg: My information was not that it is general, but does confirm what the hon. and gallant Member says that these restrictions did extend beyond these two camps, and the Protecting Power is looking into the matter.

Sir A. Knox: Do I understand that beyond these there are no more restrictions on mails in Germany?

Sir J. Grigg: I should like to confine myself to the answer that I gave, which was that the German Government have recently informed the Protecting Power that the restrictions imposed on the mails have been abolished.

Captain Godfrey Nicholson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say from what date the restrictions' were relaxed and when relations here may expect letters?

Sir J. Grigg: No, I cannot say that without notice, but I will look into the matter and let my hon. and gallant Friend know.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Public Authorities Protection Act

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Public Authorities Protection Act has been relaxed in England whereby court proceedings can be taken outwith the six months period; and will he take steps to apply similar relaxation in Scotland?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative.


The Act, however, applies only in civil and not in criminal cases, As regards the second part of the Question, the possibility of amending the law in Scotland was considered in peace time but the subject was controversial and it was not found possible to make progress before the outbreak of war. I am aware of only one Scottish case in which the adoption of the English amendment would have permitted an action to go forward.

Shelters, Glasgow (Destruction and Damage)

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state the proportion of air-raid shelters in Glasgow which have been deliberately damaged and their amenities destroyed through the action of youthful delinquents?

Mr. Johnston: Approximately 40 per cent. of the public surface shelters in Glasgow have been damaged. There can be no doubt that the damage generally has been needless and wanton, but I cannot say what proportion of the damage has been done by juvenile delinquents.

Major Lloyd: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this state of affairs is most deplorable and is he not aware that in many wards rumour has it that there are no public shelters that can be used owing to their condition, many of their amenities having been completely destroyed; and will he give an assurance to the House that he will not allow the Glasgow authorities to adopt a defeatist attitude on this matter? Are we correct in understanding they will not go ahead with trying to improve the situation by providing fresh amenities and will leave the situation as it is?

Mr. Johnston: I understand that negotiations are already in progress between the Corporation of Glasgow and the District Commissioner for Civil Defence and I have every reason to believe that they are proceeding amicably and that the Corporation do intend to take whatever steps are within their power to limit the amount of destruction which has taken place.

Mrs. Hardie: Is the Minister not aware that almost all big cities and towns are having the same difficulty?

Mr. Johnston: No, Sir, that is not my information.

Mr. McKinlay: Can we be assured that when a penalty which is supposed to meet the offence is imposed in Glasgow police court there will be no interference from the Scottish Office?

Housing, Clydebank

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the need for rehousing workers in Clydebank cannot be met by the mere employment of 100 men on finishing 288 new houses, and that before the completion of this work this winter it is necessary to begin a further scheme, not leaving any gap in rehousing schemes; and whether he will consult with the Ministers of Production and Supply about priorities in supplying wooden huts and get an allocation of not less than 2,000 wooden huts for Clydebank as a temporary measure?

Mr. Johnston: About 800 tradesmen are employed in Clydebank in repairing war damaged houses and in completing the 288 houses under construction. As I have already informed the hon. Member, it is not possible to get additional labour for the building of new houses at the present time, but when the 288 houses are completed I shall review the Council's proposal for new building in the light of the then position as to labour and materials. The Town Council have plenty of land available for new houses and have plans of the houses prepared, so that if the labour position improves and we are able to authorise new building, they will be able to get ahead immediately with the work. I am in touch with the Minister of Production and the other Ministers concerned in the matter raised in the second part of the hon. Member's Question.

Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us in this House have been to Scotland on business connected with the war and are simply horrified by the state of affairs in those parts? Will he not try to do something for these people before the severe winter weather sets in?

Mr. Johnston: I can assure the Noble Lord that I have spared no pains—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will


assure him of that—to have as many war-damaged houses as possible repaired before the winter. Not only are damaged houses being repaired, but new houses are being constructed.

Mr. Kirkwood: Arising from the Minister's original reply, I am very sorry that I have to press the matter home on the Floor of the House of Commons. It is absolutely desperate. What is the proposition that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who knows the circumstances, is prepared to place before the Minister of Production and the Minister of Supply, in order that the matter of getting temporary houses may be dealt with before the winter sets in?

Mr. Johnston: I stick to the last part of my answer. I am in touch with the Minister of Production and other Ministers concerned in the matter raised in the second part of the Question.

Mr. McNeil: May we take it that if any arrangement is reached for planning houses of the type at Clydebank, the facilities will be offered to other areas?

Mr. Johnston: That is one of the difficulties with which we are faced, in view of the minimum supply of labour and materials. The whole question at issue at the moment is how far that limited supply of labour and materials may be used to the best national advantage.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Petroleum Board (Profits)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has yet any statement to make regarding the disposal of profits made by the Petroleum Board?

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): Agreement has been reached with the Petroleum Board on several points, including the rate of return, on the capital employed which has been' fixed at 7½ per cent. The main question outstanding is the valuation of the capital on which the return of 7½ per cent. will be payable, and this valuation raises difficult questions of accountancy. I expect agreement on these to be reached very shortly.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister be able to make a statement to the House in the near future as to the capital employed in

the business, so that the House may judge whether the 7½ per cent. is fair or not? Without a knowledge of the capital employed, the figure means nothing.

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir.

Dean of Canterbury (Petrol Allowance)

Wing-Commander James: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has now completed his inquiries into the itinerary of the Dean of Canterbury during his recent visit to Smethwick and other places, partly on ecclesiastical matters, partly in order to attend meetings; what justified the granting to him of petrol vouchers to cover upwards of 300 miles for the journey instead of using ordinary alternative means of transport?

Major Lloyd George: The Dean of Canterbury's petrol allowance, like those of most motorists, is not for particular trips, but for any journeys for specified purposes where other means of transport are not reasonably practicable. The full investigation now completed shows that the journey in question was for purposes duly specified and approved. It also shows that in the course of the journey the Dean attended a series of meetings at several places, involving cross-country travelling for which alternative transport was not reasonably practicable.

Major Petherick: Were the meetings connected with ecclesiastical duties or with political duties? Is not the Minister aware that the large allowance of petrol granted is outrageous when it is considered that Civil Defence authorities, and the Army, Navy and Air Force have had their petrol heavily cut down?

Major Lloyd George: The trip to which the Question refers was made in July, when it was still possible to use certain parts of the basic ration. As to the allowance, after the application had been made the allowance was made, and it was considered to be reasonable.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Where do politics begin and religion end?

Captain Crowder: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much supplementary petrol has been granted to the Dean of Canterbury during the months May, June, July and August, 1942; what percentage of the four months' total was for the carrying out of his ecclesiastical duties and what percentage for other purposes?

Major Lloyd George: The Dean of Canterbury's allowance, like those of most motorists, is granted for periods of three months at a time. It is not divided either between the separate months of the period or between the essential purposes for which it is granted.

Factories

Viscount Hmohingbrooke: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is satisfied that the maximum reduction in heating and lighting is being obtained from factories now no longer fully staffed due to the concentration of industries scheme?

Major Lloyd George: The use of fuel by firms whose activities had been reduced in consequence of industrial concentration was made the subject of careful inquiry earlier this year; and my predecessor was satisfied that there was then no excessive consumption of fuel. In view, however, of the urgent need for securing all possible economies, I am proposing, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to institute further detailed inquiries into those industries which show best promise of economy.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister aware that while no fire is allowed to be lighted in the Library, there was a big fire allowed in the Lords?

Major Lloyd George: I know that, Sir, but I would not call this a factory not fully staffed.

Miners

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, in view of the net increase of 3,490 in the number of miners at work between 1st January and 12th September, 1942, and the resumption of work in the mines in the same period by 18,957 men, what happened to the 15,467 miners who, in that period, apparently left the mines?

Major Lloyd George: The loss of 15,467 miners to which the hon. Member refers is explained by the normal net wastage of the industry, which, as I have informed the House, is currently running at a rate of 25,000 per annum.

Coal Industry (Juveniles)

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether it is intended to make available in the Vote

Office the Report of the Committee on the Recruitment of Juveniles in the Coal Mining Industry?

Major Lloyd George: This Report was published by the Stationery Office in August last, and copies can be obtained through the Vote Office in the usual way.

Mr. Adams: In view of the great importance of this matter, is it not advisable to make this Report available in the Vote Office?

Major Lloyd George: It is so available, and the hon. Member can get it if he asks for it.

Mr. Adams: Is it intended to debate the Report, in view of its controversial nature?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Women Fire-Watchers (Clothing)

Mr. Doland: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider supplying extra coupons to allow women fire-watchers to purchase stout shoes and a warm over garment, which may prevent serious illness whilst performing compulsory duties, as women's ordinary shoes and outer garments are often unsuitable for their duties in bitter weather?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): No, Sir. I regret that, in view of the increasing stringency of supplies, I cannot undertake to issue extra coupons to women fire-watchers.

Utility Clothiug (Export)

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether utility clothing manufactures are being exported abroad to countries to which branded goods alone have hitherto been sent?

Mr. Dalton: The export of utility cloth and apparel is prohibited except under licence. Licences are issued only in exceptional circumstances.

Utility Crockery and Furniture

Mr. McNeil: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether where bombed-out families are given tenancies of new or repaired houses, he will take steps to ensure that they will have priority in obtaining essential utility crockery and furniture as it becomes available locally?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. The necessary arrangements have already been made for crockery and will shortly be made for furniture.

Retail Trade (Government Proposals)

Mr. Leslie: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement about the Third Interim Report of the Retail Trade Committee, in view of the fact that the committee is unable to proceed with its work of considering post-war problems of the retail distributive trades other than food?

Mr. Dalton: I am much obliged to the members of the Retail Trade Committee for their valuable work, and I am in consultation with the chairman regarding the future of the committee. The principal recommendation in the committee's third report, for a compulsory levy on retail traders, has met with strong opposition from most sections of the trade, would involve much administration, and could not be put into force without legislation, which would be controversial. His Majesty's Government, therefore, have decided not to adopt it.

Mr. Leslie: Does not the Minister agree that, in view of the chaos existing in the distributive trades, it would be well if the committee got down to the work of considering post-war problems? Is he aware of the solution advanced in regard to this matter by the Trades Union Congress?

Mr. Dalton: As I mentioned in my answer, I am in touch with the chairman of the committee regarding its future, and I hope to see the chairman again to-morrow.

Sir Percy Harris: Does the answer of the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Government propose to do nothing about this difficult problem?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. Perhaps I may mention that there may be another Question on this subject later in the proceedings.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding his proposals for the future of the retail trade?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I would ask my hon. Friend to await a statement which,

with the leave of the House, I will make at the end of Questions.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet in a position to come to a decision on the proposal to issue licences to proprietors of small businesses who have closed down in consequence of the war, so that they may have priority for a specified period in re-establishing themselves after the war?

Mr. Dalton: As regard industrial concerns, I would refer my hon. Friend to the undertaking given in paragraph 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum on the Concentration of Production. As regard retail businesses, I would ask my hon. Friend to await the statement I propose to make at the end of Questions.

At the end of Questions:

Mr. Dalton: In my speech to the House on 23rd July I referred to complaints from small retailers that they were not getting their fair share of supplies. I undertook to investigate these complaints and have made inquiries accordingly. The evidence is conflicting. On the one hand, small shopkeepers complain that they cannot obtain goods, which they see in the windows of larger stores or multiples, or advertised in the Press. On the other hand, it is clear that many suppliers, wholesalers and manufacturers have been distributing goods to their customers fairly, some having worked out elaborate systems of rationing for this purpose. But, whether or not there is serious maldistribution now, as time goes on and supplies become shorter, there is a real danger that a large number of the smaller shops may be squeezed out of business. For many reasons this would be undesirable. Stocks of essential goods should be widely dispersed, in order to minimise the risk of air-raid damage. Secondly, many rural areas depend on small shops. If these get insignificant supplies, the consumers in those areas must go short. Thirdly, to economise transport, people should shop near home and avoid as far as possible expeditions to the larger shops in neighbouring towns or districts. Finally, increasing Government demands for storage and office accommodation must be met and we must look to the larger shops to yield up substantial amounts of space.
I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that some positive action is needed to assure to the small retailer his fan-share of the available supplies. What I have in mind is that, for certain classes of goods, each small retailer should receive a percentage of his purchases in a standard year. These percentages would be fixed by the Board of Trade and would depend on the relation of supplies in the current year to those in the standard year. Arrangements would also have to be made for extra supplies for areas where, owing to movements of population and other causes, needs of consumers have increased. A scheme of this kind could be imposed by Order. But I do not want to make fresh Orders, if I can get the same results by voluntary methods, and I believe that in this case, with the cooperation of the trade, we can get what we want with the minimum of compulsion. I propose to begin with clothing, pottery and hollow-ware—three of the most important trades—but I do not rule out the possibility of further extensions later. I intend to appoint small joint committees of retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers, for each of these three trades, with independent chairmen, to advise me how best to apply a plan of this kind to their trades, and, when the plan is approved, to supervise its working. If any Committee reports that a particular firm refuses to follow the approved scheme, I propose, after due inquiry, to issue directions to that firm.
These proposals will promote fair distribution, both between areas and retailers. But further steps are needed. Economy in the handling of small orders can be realised through bulking them, either by arrangement between the wholesalers dealing with a particular area, or by the shopkeepers in an area combining their purchases. Such arrangements present difficulties, but my intention is to facilitate them in every way possible. We must ensure that distribution is conducted on the most economical lines, and that no unnecessary transport or labour is used to move goods from manufacturer and wholesaler to consumer. We must face the fact that supplies will become even shorter as stocks run down, and that fresh calls will be made on the retail trade to provide labour for war purposes. I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on this problem

and he will be announcing shortly the new arrangements to be made. It is, I fear, inevitable that, as the war continues, the difficulties of retail traders will increase and I have, therefore, had to consider what steps can be taken to assist those in trouble. I have discussed with my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor the Retail Trade Committee's proposal for an extension of the Liabilities (War-Time Adjustment) Act. We came to the conclusion that such extension is unnecessary. So far little use has been made of this Act—probably because traders do not understand how much help can be obtained from it. I am taking steps to remedy this. I wish to emphasise that it is not necessary to withdraw from business in order to take advantage of the Act. It helps those who stay in, as well as those who go out. I hope that traders, to whom the war has brought financial difficulties, will not hesitate to have recourse to this Act, which was designed precisely for the kind of circumstances in which they may find themselves. I think I have correctly interpreted the feeling, both of the House and of the retail trade, in concentrating upon proposals designed to help traders who are still in business. But I have not forgotten those who have already withdrawn or who may be forced by circumstances to withdraw in future. The first step to safeguard their interests is the establishment of a register, and this I propose to do forthwith.

Mr. De la Bère: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Government will guarantee the small trader a certain percentage? Do I understand that there will be a definite guarantee to each small trader now in business, of a percentage of his pre-war supplies?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, that is the intention of the plan.

Colonel Arthur Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the recent Order with regard to the distribution of sports goods through the N. A. A.F.I. is seriously embarrassing the sports goods retail trade? Is he aware that the scheme is not satisfactory, and will he undertake to look into this matter again?

Mr. Dalton: That is a different subject. It is a particular example of the particular Questions put and answered in the House. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman cares to put down another Question,


I will answer it, but this is dealing with the larger issue.

Major Petherick: Would it not be suitable to include distributors of sports goods in the measure which he proposes to adopt in the case of the clothing and other trades he has mentioned to-day? Is he aware that the recent action taken by the Board of Trade will probably ruin a large proportion of the retailers of sports goods throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. Dalton: That, again, is a particular case.

Wing-Commander James: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps will be taken to see that multiple shops which are manufacturers as well as distributors are directed to supply their goods to small traders?

Mr. Dalton: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read my statement, I think he will find that that point is covered.

Captain De Chair: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how this will affect small retail traders in battle areas?

Mr. Dalton: It does not directly touch that point. The proposals I have been announcing to the House relate to traders still continuing in business. If they have ceased to continue in business since the beginning of the war, I intend to make a register and, on that, to consider what further measures can be taken.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: With regard to the proposals that retailers' stocks should be based on the pre-war position, is my right hon. Friend aware that in many country districts people are unable to get points rationed goods because shops do not possess them and did not possess them even before the war started? Further, is he aware that the system will not apply fairly with regard to food?

Mr. Dalton: My statement does not apply to food, which is under the Ministry of Food. It applies to the non-food retail trades.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The statement that the right hon. Gentleman is to set up joint committees will be welcomed. Would it not be possible on occasions to find a shop worker who might help with the work of a committee?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Can the right Gentleman make it clear what is the area of jurisdiction of these joint committees? It is not quite clear from his statement.

Mr. Dalton: The intention is originally to set up three committees of national scope, and it will be for them to advise me as to the best administrative system and as to how far local committees should be set up. I shall begin by setting up three committees. As regards the point raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and others, I will take them into consideration with a view to giving the greatest satisfaction to the interests of all concerned.

Mr. Mathers: As it appears to be obvious that this arrangement will apply to Scotland as well as to the country South of the Border, will my right hon. Friend keep in mind the fact that the Liabilities (War-time Adjustment) Act does not apply to Scotland?

Mr. Dalton: That is so, and I am in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on that matter. I consulted him before making this statement. He will speak for himself on this matter, but we are in touch.

Captain Peter Macdonald: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Minister of Labour on this question, because many small traders are being put out of business through the calling-up of key men and women? Unless this point is dealt with, the statement he has made will be ineffective.

Mr. Dalton: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read my statement—I know that it was long and difficult to take in orally—he will see that I stated that I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on the whole question of labour withdrawals from the retail trade. My right hon. Friend will have something to say on that.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unless he lays down in clear and unmistakable language the relationship between wholesaler and retailer on the one hand and the wholesaler arid the trust syndicates and combines on the other, one will get less and the other more? The position will remain exactly the same, and the small retailer will still go out of business.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: In view of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made, and the questions he has been asked, will he look again into the question of the distribution of sports goods by retailers, because it is a hard case?

Mr. Dalton: The arrangement was made in consultation with the War Office, and I would not like to give the impression—I do not want to mislead the House—that it can be reconsidered in the sense of being altered. The matter was gone into very fully. Nevertheless, without making any commitment that the arrangement can be changed, I will look into the question again.

Mr. Doland: Is it the Government's intention not to implement any of the recommendations of the Select Committee which was set up?

Mr. Dalton: I said in answer to a Question put earlier by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) that we are not going to implement the principal recommendation. I have also referred to other recommendations in the course of the reply just given.

Mr. Linstead: Are we to understand from that reply that the right hon. Gentleman has abandoned any proposal dealing with compensation of men who have been put out of business owing to war conditions?

Mr. Dalton: I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) that the particular proposal contained in the report of the Retail Trade Committee will not be acted upon by the Government for the reasons which I have given.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: On a point of Order. I put a Question—No. 54—to the right hon. Gentleman, and his reply was that he intended to make a statement covering the matter at the end of Questions. The statement which he has made contains no reference to the point in my Question. The right hon. Gentleman refers to registration. Is it to be registration of those traders who have been put out of business and is it intended that they will get priority in re-establishing themselves after the war?

Mr. Dalton: I do not know whether I may answer what is perhaps doubtfully described as a point of Order.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member's Question was intended for the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dalton: I cannot at the moment add anything to the answer given in the last part of the statement which I have just made to the House. I am going to take steps to have a register made. The exact use that will be made of that register is a matter for further consideration. Until we have got the register and have defined the size of the problem, we cannot move in the direction desired by my hon. Friend.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Arising out of the important and encouraging statement which the President of the Board of Trade has made, may I ask him whether, so that all Government Departments may have an identical policy in this matter, he would send that statement to the Minister of Food and ask the Minister Of Food to reverse his policy of subsidising big interests at the expense of the smaller retailer producers?

Mr. Dalton: I do not know that the exact procedure suggested by my hon. Friend would be the proper one. Retail trade problems in regard to food differ from those which arise in regard to nonfood trades, and I have no authority to speak on the food aspect of the question.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister said he would attempt to get a voluntary scheme working, and that in the event of individual shopkeepers being outside-this scheme, he would issue a direction apparently to them. Can he give us some indication of the kind of direction he contemplates?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. The direction will be to distribute the supplies in their hands equitably between the different purchasers who buy from them, in relation to the distribution in the standard year.

Mr. McGovern: If traders desire to remain outside is there any power to refuse labour to those firms and prevent them from getting material?

Mr. Dalton: The firms to whom I would propose to issue the direction would not be retailers. They would be either wholesalers or manufacturers. I should not be prepared to permit any wholesaler or manufacturer in the trade


scheduled to remain outside. They would be expected to make a fair distribution among their retailers of the supplies they receive. That is the whole purpose.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: In view of the very wide scope of the statement which my right hon. Friend has made and the difficulty of dealing by Question and answer with all the points which it involves, would my right hon. Friend consider the desirability of having a Debate on this subject?

Mr. Dalton: That is not a matter for me.

Boot and Shoe Repairing

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is proposed to be done with regard to the boot repairing industry; and whether he is aware that great hardship will be caused to small shoemakers and the general public in country districts if small repairing businesses are closed down?

Mr. Dalton: I have undertaken the control of the boot and shoe repairing industry in order to ensure that the best use is made of existing facilities to meet Service and civilian demands. I am fully aware of the need to make use of the small repairer, especially in country districts, and there is no present intention of closing any repair establishments, whether large or small.

Mr. E. Walkden: Has my right hon. Friend also considered the difficulties of obtaining adequate labour to repair boots and shoes in the country districts, and in some of the small towns as well?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. That is a particular case of the difficulty we are always having to face, but we are trying to do the best we can under the circumstances.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Is the right hon. Gentleman in touch with the Minister of Labour on the question of men being called up from these industries?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, I am constantly in touch with my right hon. Friend.

Second-Hand Clothing (Sale)

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether persons disposing of second-hand clothing are entitled to receive from the purchaser

coupons which in turn may be used to replenish their stock?

Mr. Dalton: Private persons disposing of second-hand or new clothing may not accept, or be given, coupons in exchange; on the other hand, traders who sell second-hand clothing must obtain coupons from the purchaser, unless the price is below certain specified limits. Coupons obtained by traders in this way may be used by them in the normal course of their business to replenish their supplies of rationed goods.

Mr. Edwards: Does this mean that one person can sell second-hand clothes to another without any coupons?

Mr. Dalton: It means what I have tried to make clear in the answer. Persons who are engaged in trade may, in the course of trade, sell goods and receive coupons for them—they must indeed do so to replenish their stocks—but private persons must not traffic in loose coupons, or we should allow the black market even greater opportunities than it has now.

Captain Poole: Is a licence needed for the sale of second-hand clothes? If not, how does my right hon. Friend distinguish between a trader and a private person?

Mr. Dalton: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put that Question down.

Sir A. Southby: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that a private individual may not buy or sell from another private individual without coupons passing?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, I think that if the hon. and gallant Member looks at the answer it will be clear.

Toys (Price Control)

Mr. Thorne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the profiteering in Christmas toys; whether his investigators have made a report to him; and what action he intends taking about the matter?

Mr. Mort: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the exorbitant prices now being charged for toys, with the prospect of further increases as Christmas approaches; and whether he intends taking steps to regulate such prices?

Mr. Dalton: I have made an Order prohibiting any increase in manufacturers' prices of toys above the prices charged on 30th September, 1942, and fixing maximum margins for wholesalers and retailers. I am also arranging for the release of an additional quantity of toys, of the cheaper kinds, from manufacturers' and wholesalers' stocks during the next two months in order to increase the supply available for Christmas. But, in view of the ever diminishing quantities of labour and materials which can be devoted to toy manufacture, an increase in supply now will mean a reduced supply next year.

Mr. Thorne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some people who are making various kinds of toys and working very long hours for very small pay are complaining that the toys are being sold by other people who are making a huge profit?

Mr. Dalton: That will not be possible when the wholesalers' and retailers' margins are fixed, as they will be under the Order.

Black-Out Material

Mr. Thorne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the shortage of black-out material which is now selling at 6s. per yard; and whether he will allow more of it to be made?

Mr. Dalton: I am aware that there is a shortage of cheap black-out material in some districts. The allocation of cotton for the manufacture of this material has recently been increased. Prices of blackout material are at present controlled under the General Apparel and Cloth (Maximum Prices and Charges) Order, 1943. The utility black-out cloth, of which production has started, will be price-controlled at all stages. The retail price will be substantially less than that quoted in the Question.

Mr. Thorne: Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to have the Purchase Tax removed so that the material could be made more cheaply?

Mr. Dalton: That is a question which could properly be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

War Damage (Household Requisites)

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it

it now the practice of assessors under the War Damage Act, when computing the amount of compensation payable to enable applicants to replace furniture and other household commodities destroyed or damaged by enemy action, to include the amount of Purchase Tax which now has to be paid on the articles concerned?

Mr. Dalton: Claims under Part II of the War Damage Act are assessed on values ruling at the time of the damage. These values take into account the Purchase Tax then payable. Where, however, advance payments are made to replace essential household requisites, account 1s taken of the level of prices, including Purchase Tax, current at the time of payment.

Mr. Green: Would the right hon. Gentleman see that a copy of the instructions to these assessors is placed in the Library so that Members may convince themselves that the instructions are being carried out in their locality?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I shall be very glad for that to be arranged.

Mr. Bellenger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of the damage occurred in the winter of 1940–41 when prices were considerably lower than they are now? Is it not time to revise the system of compensation for those who have to replenish their homes at considerably higher prices?

Mr. Dalton: I shall be glad to look into it again.

Cotton Industry (Organisation)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the resolution passed at a public meeting recently held in Manchester of representatives of the Lancashire cotton industry, and sent to him, demanding the resignation of both the chairman of the Cotton Board and the Cotton Controller on the grounds of dictatorial inefficiency and calling for the abolition of British Overseas Cotton in favour of another form of organisation; and what answer he has returned?

Mr. Dalton: I have seen in the Press a report of the resolution to which my hon. Friend refers. I have also seen in the Press a report that a Committee comprising the elected heads of the producing and mercantile associations of the cotton industry has unanimously disassociated


itself from the resolution. Leading organisations in the spinning, manufacturing, dyeing and merchanting sections of the industry have written to me deprecating the attacks on the Chairman of the Cotton Board and the Cotton Controller, and paying tribute to their services. Both Sir Raymond Streat and Mr. Frank Platt are doing admirable work in very difficult circumstances, and they have the full confidence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and myself.

Mr. Davies: In view of these very serious conflicting interests, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to act as adjudicator between them?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I propose to ignore Mr. Stowell, whom I regard as a person of no significance at all.

Utility Lighters (Price)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade why the wholesaler and retailer profits on utility lighters have been fixed at a higher basis than normally apply to articles of utility use; and why they are higher than for matches' distribution?

Mr. Dalton: The wholesaler's and retailer's margins for utility lighters are not higher than those allowed for other utility articles. The margins of profit allowed on the distribution of matches are those customary in the trade; they are lower than those for utility lighters because matches are, and always have been, handled in much larger quantities.

Captain Poole: Will my right hon. Friend say why the utility lighter is retailed at about 6s. 6d., when a lighter of identical design and superior finish is retailed in America at 35 cents, which is 1s. 8d.?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. In this country We impose an Excise Duty of 2S. 6d., which is paid by the manufacturer of utility lighters.

Food and Raw Materials (World Surpluses)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make a statement on the policy to deal with the problem of the surpluses of food and raw materials; is there a United Nations agreed plan, and is it intended that the plans shall form the basis of a world economic plan for the future?

Mr. Dalton: The course of the war, and in particular the entry of the United States and events in the Far East, has reduced the scope of this problem. As my hon. Friend will be aware, a Wheat Agreement has recently been made between the United States, Canada, Australia, the Argentine and the United Kingdom, and other discussions are proceeding.

Domestic Cooking Utensils

Mr. Molson (for Major Profumo): asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the shortage of domestic cooking utensils in some parts of the country and the apparent surplus in other parts; and whether he will consider taking some steps to satisfy the demand, in the places where there is a shortage?

Mr. Dalton: There is a general shortage of domestic cooking utensils, as of many other articles, but steps have been taken to increase the production of the more essential articles. If my hon. and gallant Friend knows of any area in which there is a surplus, I should be much obliged if he would let me have particulars.

Mr. Isaacs: Will my right hon. Friend encourage the manufacture of haybox apparatus about which, I believe, a communication has been sent to him?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, we will look into that, but my hon. Friend will no doubt like to know that we are increasing the production both of kettles and saucepans very substantially.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend regards a teapot as a cooking utensil, but teapots in London are very conspicuous by their absence and are difficult to obtain in the suburbs.

Mr. Dalton: We are doing our best to increase the supply.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he will find time for consideration of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Evesham, relating to Government announcements?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): I fear that I can hold out no


hope of the Government being able to allocate time for discussion of the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is no use the Government disclaiming responsibility for certain articles that appear in the Press when all the time these articles are written by Press representatives who are paid by the Government themselves, and will he really give this matter serious thought? More and more of these men are being called up by the Government and being paid to put in articles, which is absolutely deceiving the public, who think they are part of the ordinary Press when they are nothing more or less than inspired articles by the Government, which are paid for. The whole thing is wrong. Would he look into it?

Sir S. Gripps: The Government are always prepared to look into anything which the hon. Gentleman says is wrong.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that these deceptions will not much longer continue to deceive?

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND AND EIRE (BORDER DEFENCE)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister who is responsible for the defence of those frontiers of the United Kingdom which form the Border between Northern Ireland and Eire?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The defence of the Border between Northern Ireland and Eire is a British Government responsibility. While the military forces are held ready to deal with any armed incursion across the Border on a scale and of a nature which would justify their employment, it is primarily the responsibility of the civil power to deal with criminal outrages committed by persons either from within or without the Border.

Sir T. Moore: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what is a definition of "scale" or "nature"?

Professor Savory: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that under the Act of 1920 all relations between Northern Ireland and any other of His Majesty's

Dominions are a reserved service, and therefore the responsibility for these outrages which are committed from the other side of the Border falls upon His Majesty's Government alone?

Mr. Attlee: I gather the hon. Member has put to me a legal question. I should like to see it on the Order Paper.

Sir A. Southby: How many people will have to be shot up before His Majesty's Government move in the matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

National Savings Committee

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total number of persons employed by the National Savings Committee in receipt of salary and wages; the total number of full-time voluntary workers, and the total number of part-time voluntary workers; and the estimated number of man-hours devoted to this work for the year ended September, 1942, by the voluntary workers?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): The answer to the first part of the Question is 1,692. In reply to the second part, the total number of voluntary workers is about 600,000, of whom a few give their whole time to do this work. I fear I cannot give even an approximate estimate of the number of man-hours devoted to National Savings business by voluntary workers.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Does it not seem obvious to my right hon. Friend that the whole of this organisation requires reconstructing, to save the loss and misuse of man-power which is going on at present?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, I do not agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: My right hon. Friend never does agree with me.

Bank of England

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the profit for the year ended 31st August, 1942, of £8,228,259 10s. 3d. arising out of the gross interest paid by the Government to the issue department of the Bank of England on the £880,000,000 securities acquired by them as backing for the total note issue; and are the deductions from the gross income,


which are made in arriving at the profit stated above, made strictly in accordance with the terms of the Bank Charter Act, 1844, which took the power from the banks to make their own issue of notes?

Sir K. Wood: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second part, the ascertainment of the profits of the Issue Department is regulated, not by the Bank Charter Act, 1844, but by the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928, the terms of which are fully observed.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: So that we may be satisfied as to whether this is a reasonable profit or not, will my right hon. Friend state the total amount of gross interest received by the Bank of England on the total securities of the fiduciary note issue?

Sir K. Wood: If my hon. Friend will put the Question on the Paper, I will answer it.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I asked for an answer before, and my right hon. Friend simply refused to reply.

Bank for International Settlements

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of deposits held by the Treasury with the Bank for International Settlements, either directly or through the Bank of England; how much of it is invested in Germany; and whether, since the outbreak of war, any principal or interest payment has been received from Germany on those deposits by the Bank for International Settlements on behalf of His Majesty's Government?

Sir K. Wood: The Hague Conference of 1930 provided for the ten creditor Governments concerned to make long-term deposits with the Bank for International Settlements. The British share in these deposits amounts to 26,500,000 Reichsmarks. These deposits, under the terms of the Hague agreements, bear no interest. The investments of the Bank in Germany are part of its general assets, and bear no direct relation to these deposits, and I understand that interest is being duly paid on these investments to the Bank.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of shares held by each Axis state and by countries under Axis control in the Bank for International Settlements?

Sir K. Wood: As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) on 6th October, this information is not available, but I will circulate in the OFFICLU. REPOKT the numbers of shares originally subscribed in each country in which they were issued, in respect of which the Central Banks concerned or other financial institutions are entitled to exercise votes at General Meetings of the B.I.S.

Mr. Stokes: As the answer is not clear, will the Chancellor also indicate who has the voting power—how it is distributed among the shareholders?

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Member will look at my reply.

Following are the figures referred to:


United Kingdom
…
19,772


Belgium
…
19,772


France
…
19,772


Italy
…
19,772


Germany
…
23,772


Japan
…
19,770


United States of America
…
19,770


Netherlands
…
4,000


Switzerland
…
4,000


Sweden
…
4,000


Danzig
…
4,000


Finland
…
4,000


Greece
…
4,000


Bulgaria
…
4,000


Denmark
…
4,000


Roumania
…
4,000


Poland
…
4,000


Hungary
…
4,000


Czechoslovakia
…
4,000


Norway
…
4,000


Yugoslavia
…
4,000


Latvia
…
500


Lithuania
…
500


Albania
…
500


Estonia
…
100

Wages (National Arbitration Tribunal)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take power to be represented at all negotiations or arbitration proceedings for increases of wages?

Sir K. Wood: Under the existing system, the majority of members of the National Arbitration Tribunal consists of independent persons appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service, but these persons are in no way subject to instructions or control from the Government. The negotiating machinery in particular industries usually consists only of representatives of the employers and workers in those industries. As I have explained in replies to previous Questions,


this system essentially relies on maintenance of a sense of responsibility on the part of the industrial organisations concerned, and so long as that continues a greater measure of Government intervention would not appear to be necessary.

Mr. Keeling: As the bulk of wages now paid are for Government work, are not the Government interested in wages?

Sir K. Wood: I think we may say "Yes" to that.

Mr. Molson: If, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer now says, no guidance is given to the members of these boards, how is it that he made an appeal to them to show a sense of responsibility and to accept part of the responsibility which should rest on the Government?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, I had already acknowledged that these organisations had shown a sense of responsibility, and I said that I hoped and believed that that would continue.

Sir H. Williams: Would my right hon. Friend consider a case where workpeople have made a proposal for a big advance in wages, which would precisely wipe out the whole of the Excess Profits Tax due to him?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, I should like details.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is the Chancellor aware that the system upon which employers and workers are supposed to negotiate wages is a complete farce, and that the more the employer pays in wages the more the employer gets?

Sir K. Wood: I have heard my hon. Friend say that before.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMBINED OPERATION RAIDS

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister whether the public are kept fully informed of all raids carried out by the Director of Combined Operations; and, if not, how many such raids hitherto undisclosed have been carried out and with what results?

Mr. Attlee: Large onfalls are fully described, but there have been several and there will be many minor operations

on the scale of trench raids in the last war about which normally nothing will be said.

Mr. Granville: In view of the stories that are being circulated, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the War Office is informed of these raids?

Sir T. Moore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the B.B.C. said last week that the Sark raid was one of many, and that that gave rise to a certain amount of feeling in the country as to what was happening, and whether we were being kept informed as to what our operational role was?

Mr. Attlee: I think the answer I have given will satisfy the hon. and gallant Member on that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DAMAGE INSURANCE (AGRICULTURE)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Trade for what reason the premium for War Damage Insurance in respect of agriculture has been increased; and whether it is now likely to remain permanently at the higher rate?

Mr. Dalton: For the year October, 1941, to September, 1942,. a maximum premium of 30s. was announced. The total actual premium was only 20s. per cent., collected at the rates of 15s. and 5s. for the two six-monthly periods respectively. For the year October, 1942, to September, 1943, the maximum premium will be 20s., of which 10s. is payable for the first six months. The actual rate for the second six months, which will not exceed 10s. and may be less, will be determined in the light of events.

Mr. Sorensen: Could that explanation be circulated widely, for the benefit of agriculturists, who are rather perturbed about the increase?

Mr. Dalton: We will see what we can do.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANDERSON SHELTERS

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the Anderson shelters have been offered for salvage; how many are not being used now; and what is it proposed to do with them?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): No complete Anderson shelters have been offered for salvage, but a quantity of damaged parts has been disposed of as scrap and a number of surplus components sold for industrial purposes. Returns recently obtained from local authorities show that approximately 15,000 Anderson shelters have ceased to be required at their existing sites, and, in accordance with the practice which has been followed for some considerable time past, arrangements are being made to transfer these shelters to other areas where they are needed.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the hon. Lady seen the statement in the Press, that over 400,000 of these shelters are now being wasted? Would she say whether that is correct?

Miss Wilkinson: That statement was made by the Gallup poll people, who are as inaccurate on this point as they are on many others.

Oral Answers to Questions — SENTENCE ON HOME GUARD, MELKSHAM

Mr. McGovern: asked the Home Secretary whether he will review the sentence of one month's imprisonment with hard labour passed by the Melksham magistrates on Reginald Brown, a farm labourer, for failing to attend Home Guard parades; whether he is aware of the fine record held by this man as an efficient and hard-working farm-worker; and whether he will use his power to release this man forthwith?

Miss Wilkinson: I am informed that this man has been released on bail pending the hearing of his appeal. In these circumstances it would not be proper for mc to make any comment.

Mr. McGovern: Is the Home Secretary aware of the tremendous public feeling against the prosecution of a man of this character, and will he try to prevent such prosecutions?

Oral Answers to Questions — PLEASURE ROWING BOATS (EXAMINATION)

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, in view of accidents

arising from defective pleasure rowing boats available for public hire upon lakes and other inland waters, he will consider the desirability of the examination and licensing of all such vessels?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): The powers given to the Board of Trade under the Merchant Shipping Acts, and now exercised by the Minister of War Transport, to impose safety requirements on vessels do not extend to pleasure rowing boats, but I understand that the Public Health Acts empower local authorities to regulate, by the issue of licences, the use of such craft. If my hon. Friend has any information about accidents due to defective pleasure rowing boats, perhaps he would be good enough to send it to me or to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Mr. Adams: I shall be very happy to send that information to the Minister. Is he aware that on the Cumberland lakes two Service men were drowned through using defective boats?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I shall be glad to have the information.

Mr. Sorensen: Are we to understand that shilling-an-hour boats are under the hon. Gentleman's surveillance?

Mr. Noel-Baker: They are licensed by local authorities, under the Act of 1907. In view of the fact that they have to licence them, they are responsible for seeing that the boats are in good condition.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUMBER BRIDGE SCHEME

Mr. Quibell: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether any action is being taken by his Department to further the proposal by the local authorities concerned to proceed with the construction of the proposed Humber bridge as part of a post-war policy of development and reconstruction, especially in view of the fact that the scheme received the favourable consideration of the Parliamentary Committee which sat to consider the details of the Bill?

Mr. Noel-Baker: If the local authorities concerned submit proposals to me again, I shall be glad to consider them in the light of the probable conditions in which they may have to be carried out.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (FOOD SUPPLIES)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what food supplies the United Nations have sent to Russia; and is it intended to send the maximum available supplies in future as and when required?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Richard Law): Substantial quantities of food have in the past been sent to the Soviet Union by the United Nations, and under the terms of the agreement recently signed in Washington between the Governments of the United States of America, U.S.S.R. and United Kingdom further substantial quantities of food are made available to the Soviet Government. It is not in the public interest to disclose details of the quantities and types of food products which have already been sent or which it is proposed to send to the U.S.S.R.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR AND PEACE AIMS

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of recent pronouncements by His Majesty's Ambassadors to the United States of America and Spain, respectively, when the issues of the war were defined as the establishment of Christian civilisation and Christian brotherhood and, in view of the divergent attitudes to religion held by governments of the United Nations and the fact that millions of Jews, Hindus, Moslems, Rationalists and Atheists are engaged in prosecuting the war, he will indicate to representatives of His Majesty's Government that the war and peace aims of the United Nations should be expressed in the broad and generally accepted terms of the Atlantic Charter and not as the exclusive concern of Christianity or any particular body of religious faith?

Mr. Law: No, Sir. Though the Atlantic Charter remains the authoritative expression of the war aims of His Majesty's Government, I think my hon. Friend would admit that the Charter falls within the broad principles of Christianity, as would, I hope, any other aims to which His Majesty's Government subscribe.

Mr. Sorensen: Are we to take it, therefore, that missionaries are no longer required to take Christianity to the other nations who are fighting in this war; and,

seeing that we state that the aims of the war are for Christian civilisation, is it not extremely incongruous that the majority who are fighting are not Christians?

Mr. Law: I do not think that those who are fighting on the side of the Allies, at any rate, would dissent from the proposition that they were fighting for principles for which Christian civilisation itself stands.

Earl Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of leading Moslems in many countries, rightly or wrongly, have misunderstood this statement and also statements made by political and ecclesiastical heads in this country, and that it is very necessary to make clear to them that they are fighting for truth and God and not for any particular religion? Will my hon. Friend give an answer to that question? If not, I desire to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIDOW PENSIONERS (WAR WORK)

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Minister of Health whether he possesses statistics to show, approximately, the number or percentage of the 800,000 widows on contributory pensions who have taken up paid war work?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I regret that the information asked for by my hon. Friend is not available, as widow pensioners are not required to notify the Central Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHAINED PRISONERS OF WAR

Mr. Greenwood (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether he has arty statement to make on the measures taken by the German Government against prisoners of war from Dieppe and the counter-measures taken by His Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): His Majesty's Government have never countenanced any general order for the tying up of prisoners on the field of battle. Such a process, however, may be necessary from time to time under stress of circumstances, and may indeed be in the best interest of the safety of the prisoners themselves.
The Geneva Convention upon the treatment of prisoners of war does not attempt to regulate what happens in the actual fighting. It is confined solely to the treatment of prisoners who have been securely captured and are in the responsible charge of the hostile Government. Both His Majesty's Government and the German Government are bound by this Convention. The German Government by throwing into chains 1,370 British prisoners of war for whose proper treatment they are responsible have violated Article 2 of the aforesaid Convention. They are thus attempting to use prisoners of war as if they were hostages upon whom reprisals can be taken for occurrences on the field of battle with which the said prisoners can have had nothing to do. This action of the German Government affronts the sanctity of the Geneva Convention which His Majesty's Government have always been anxious to observe punctiliously.
His Majesty's Government have therefore approached the protecting Power and invited that Power to lay before the German Government our solemn protest against this breach of the Geneva Convention and to urge them to desist from it, in which case the counter measures of a similar character which His Majesty's Government felt themselves forced to take in order to protect their prisoners of war in enemy hands will immediately be withdrawn.
Until we learn from the protecting Power the result of this protest, I have no further statement to make upon the subject, and I should strongly deprecate any discussion which might be prejudicial to the action of the protecting Power and consequently to the interests of the prisoners of war of both belligerent countries. As soon as a reply is received, a further statement will be made to the House.

Mr. Greenwood: May I add my word to that of the right hon. Gentleman that the matter should be allowed to stay where it is at the moment?

Mr. Pickthorn: With great diffidence, in view of what both right hon. Gentlemen have said, and with very great diffidence in suggesting verbal ambiguity in anything that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister could say, may I ask whether, when he says "upon whom reprisals can be taken," it should not rather

be "upon whom reprisals could be taken," because the form of words he read seemed to me possibly to admit that reprisals could properly be taken in that case?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. It is governed by the word "if" earlier in the sentence, as my hon. Friend should have noticed.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: In view of to-day's reported reactions from Australia can the Prime Minister say whether it is probable that any Australian prisoners in German hands have been chained?

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to amendments to:

Courts (Emergency Powers) Amendment Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE

That they give leave to Air Commodore the Viscount Stansgate to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Sub-Committee on Fighting Services appointed by the Select Committee appointed by this House on National Expenditure, if his Lordship think fit.

Orders of the Day — PROLONGATION OF PARLIAMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.— (Prolongation of present Parliament.)

Sir Richard Acland: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out "eight," and to insert "seven and a half."
The effect of this Amendment would be to prolong the life of this House by six months instead of the 12 proposed in the Bill. That this House shall prolong its life was decided last week, against the votes of some of us. I, therefore, regard that issue as not being discussable to-day, and I am sure the Chair will agree with me in that view. But I think we can consider whether 12 months is the correct period for which the life of this House should be prolonged. In the Second Reading Debate I and one or two other hon. Members brought forward evidence which, clearly, did not prove to the satisfaction of other hon. Members that this House is now an object of derision among the people of this country, but I think that that evidence was, at least, powerful enough to suggest that among some patriotic citizens of this country this House is appearing, ever more and more in an unsatisfactory light. In these days, when political as well as military developments move pretty swiftly, I suggest it is by no means impossible that within a short time a substantial number of our fellow-citizens may become extremely impatient with this House of Commons and may ardently desire that it should be brought to an end. In these days a lot may happen in six months, and I think six months would be a much better period for which to prolong the life of this present House than the 12 months proposed by the Government.
I hope the Minister will not reply to this Amendment by re-emphasising the difficulties of holding a General Election and suggesting that there is no alternative but to prolong the life of this House in its present state. During the Second Reading Debate some of my hon. Friends

and I drew attention to what seemed to us to be a feasible halfway house between indefinite prolongation and a General Election, I do not think the Minister, in the course of his reply, referred to our arguments, and obviously, I cannot repeat those arguments now, but at any rate there are other alternatives to a 100 per cent. General Election which might come up before the House six months from now and which the temper of the people might by that time force upon the House.
There is one other reply which I hope the Minister will not make to my arguments. He may be tempted to say that this Amendment can make no practical difference and he may support his argument by saying that if the House prolongs its life for 12 months, it is none the less open to the House, or to the Prime Minister, or to the King, to end the life of the House at an earlier date whereas, on the other hand, if we now prolong our life for six months, it will remain open to us in six months' time to prolong it for a further six months. So, the Minister may argue, my Amendment would make no substantial difference. I think that argument would come very poorly from the lips of a Member of the Conservative party, because the difference between what I propose and what the Government propose concerning the situation in six months' time is the precise difference between contracting in and not contracting out; in other words, I think it is important that in six months' time the House should be faced by the necessity, if it so desires and if hon. Members so dare, deliberately by positive action to prolong its life all over again and that hon. Members should not now put themselves in the nice, easy, comfortable position that they will not have to bring up this question for decision for another 12 months. For these reasons, I hope the Committee will support the Amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): There does not seem to be any great enthusiasm in the Committee for the Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland). He suggested various arguments which might be put forward against his Amendment, but I could not discern in the remarks he made any arguments in favour of it. The


short question before the Committee is whether we should pass enabling legislation, and enabling legislation only, for a period of 12 months or for a period of six months. The Government, having given their best consideration to the matter, came to the conclusion that it would meet the general convenience to introduce legislation covering a further period of 12 months. After all, 12 months is a convenient period. In the Expiring Laws Continuance Act every year, we renew Acts of Parliament for a 12 months' period. In my view, the hon. Baronet has put forward no sound reasons for shortening the period in this case, and I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. David Adams: The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland), in moving his Amendment, said that the House is looked upon by the general public in an increasingly unsatisfactory light, but he did hot fortify that statement with any arguments. It would appear from the by-elections in which the hon. Baronet has participated that not only is the House looked upon as performing its duties to the nation in a thoroughly satisfactory way, but no interest is taken by the electors at large, when the opportunity is placed in their hands, to indicate their feelings in the matter.

Sir R. Acland: I think I would have been out of Order if I had attempted to repeat the arguments I used in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill; but I thought it would be in Order, and convenient to the Committee, if I simply referred to those arguments. If the hon. Member will look at what I said in the Second Reading Debate and at the figures, he will find that the by-elections in which I have participated have indicated exactly the contrary of what he is saying and supported precisely the arguments I have made.

Mr. Adams: That is a matter of opinion.

Sir R. Acland: It is a matter of looking at the arguments and the figures.

Mr. Adams: There is no indication throughout the country that, even if the opportunity were presented to the electors, a General Election would be satisfactory.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member is not in Order. The Amendment merely concerns the length of the period, six months or 12 months. As the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) made the statement, the hon. Member may disagree with him, but he may not argue the point.

Mr. Adams: I will only say that there is no indication, as far as the feelings of the public are concerned, that there is a general demand for a General Election at the earliest possible moment, the belief being that the Government are fulfilling their obligations to the country in a perfectly satisfactory manner.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(Power to prolong the House of Commons of Northern Ireland.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McGovern: I should like to move to leave out Clause 2.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Question has been put "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I cannot take the hon. Member's Motion.

Mr. McGovern: Very well, Colonel Clifton Brown; then I will oppose the Clause, and although it was not permissible on the previous Clause to give reasons why there should be a General Election in this country in a shorter period of time, I hope I may be permitted to give reasons why there should be a General Election in Northern Ireland. I cannot understand the reason for including Northern Ireland in this Bill. That inclusion has prejudiced the question to a large extent, and the matter ought to have been dealt with in a separate Bill. I want to take this opportunity of explaining the reasons for which there should be a General Election in Northern Ireland and the people there be given an opportunity to voice their opinions and come to decisions at the poll as to whether or not the Government, or members of the Government, are entitled to continue in office or in the House. That can be decided only if the people are faced with the claims and the answers in an election struggle in Northern Ireland. The Government of Northern Ireland have had a fairly


long run. So has this House. The comparison, however, is not a good one. In this country there has been a general lack of interest regarding the Government, and although there may be differences, they are as to whether or not the war has been waged successfully or energetically enough; but there are in Northern Ireland issues that are very pregnant with tremendous possibilities in that country. These issues should be faced at an inquest at the polls in order that people may either purge the Government of some of their bad elements, or at any rate give the Government a knowledge of the opinions of the country.
The Labour party in Northern Ireland has made a request to the Labour party in this country which I should have thought deserving of more attention than it has been given. They have asked that a General Election should be held and that there should be a National Government formed in Northern Ireland, a demand which I do not intend to urge or to take part in. But I believe that the Labour party in Northern Ireland are desirous of an opportunity of going to the polls to seek to increase their representation and to put before the electors their views about the mishandling of affairs and the general mismanagement by the Government, and that the grave suspicions entertained in the minds of a large percentage of the population should be aired. That is also being urged by the Nationalist minority, who also have grievances that they want to put before the people. Then there is the large number of Unionists who disagree with the Government. The by-election in the late Lord Craigavon's seat was lost by a crushing majority, in spite of the intervention of the Prime Minister in a last-minute appeal. It might be urged that the Labour party and the Nationalists do not count, being small minorities, but surely Members of this House and the Government are bound to pay heed to the fact that the Unionist party are at long last beginning to repudiate their Government and are desirous of administering to it the rebuke and the punishment at the polls which they believe it deserves.
The Government have taken power to suppress the activities and the power of the City Council in Belfast, and a very large number of Unionist members are overwhelmingly opposed to the assumption

of these powers of dictatorship. My friends from Northern, Ireland may disagree, but I am presenting the case as I have heard it, and as I see it, and as my experience teaches me from the angles that I was told of it. When I find even the Lord Mayor and a large number of the members of the City Council saying that the Government take power to suppress the City Council in order to cover up their own misdeeds, I begin to wonder whether it is the City Council or the Government that ought to have been suppressed. Undoubtedly this is a public issue which would be fought out with tremendous heat at the polls. If the Government of this country seek to prevent the electors from passing their verdict on these public questions, they are doing a tremendous disservice to democracy, because if democracy is to live, it must voice periodically the feelings and the views of the people, and, while there is no drastic change in the mind of the people of this country, there is a dramatic and drastic change in Northern Ireland.
The Home Secretary is being attacked in Parliament and in the country as being a man who has interests other than democracy in the suppression of the City Council. I heard a few days' Debate on a Motion of Censure, which showed conclusively to my mind that it was desirable that Northern Ireland should have an opportunity of expressing itself upon the actions of the Home Secretary. The accusation was made that the City Council was suppressed because of one or two suspicious actions of members of the Council. One that was put forward was an attempted sale of land to the Council. The man who attempted to sell it had got it for a few thousand pounds and he attempted to sell it for something like £110,000 or £113,000. The Home Secretary was the agent for this man. When public opinion became incensed regarding these attempted deals and the police began to make inquiries into heavy bribes that had been offered, the man who could have given the greatest amount of evidence, the man who attempted to palm it off, and whose agent was the Home Secretary, was issued with a permit to leave the country and go to Canada and the United States. The question was discussed in the Northern Ireland Parliament, and the old answer was given by the Home Secretary which has worked very well during a long period of time: "I do not propose to


answer all these allegations m ade against me. I place myself in the hands of the House. The country knows me. I am not disposed to enter into these discussions at all."
Two other points were raised, one regarding a cinema licence which had been refused by the Home Secretary's Department. When an appeal was made to the Home Secretary, he acted as agent in the appeal against the decision of his own Department, and he got the licence granted—I am not suggesting by undue influence, but, by the fact that it was the Home Secretary appealing against his own decision, the thing was got through. There was a glaring case of a man who was prosecuted for drunkenness in charge of a motor car and for dangerous driving, and he was fined in the courts. Although the police department and the Home Secretary's Department were involved, the Home Secretary acted as the agent in the appeal against his own police. The court granted leave to appeal and the conviction was quashed.

The Deputy-Chairman: I really think that the hon. Member is going far beyond what is a reasonable argument on this Clause.

Mr. McGovern: I am showing the reasons why there should be a General Election; there is a strong public feeling on all these issues in Northern Ireland. I cannot defend the case for an election in Northern Ireland unless I show the background of discontent in that country. The Home Secretary was invited to go to a meeting of 60,000 or 70,000 people in Belfast to defend himself, and he refused. Three-quarters of the Government in Northern Ireland who voted in the Lobby in justification of the Home Secretary have interests in the Government in some way. As a result the vote was not a reflex of public opinion in the country. A large number of Unionists with whom I discussed the question, including the Lord Mayor and Conservative business men, and also men in the street, said that the Government should be sent to the electors to be purged of certain elements in it so that there could be some drastic change in the running of affairs in Northern Ireland.
The Nationalist minority have a tremendous grievance against the Government. They have 300 or 400 people interned in

Northern Ireland. I am not defending any man who has committed a crime for which he is found guilty. If a man is discovered with arms, he should stand his trial. A large number of the people who have been interned in Northern Ireland, however, have been interned without charge and without trial for over five years. They just lay in prison cells while the Government are in office. The Government should face the public and give an account to the public of this treatment of human beings. It is not a case of being interned in war conditions, for large numbers of them were arrested in 1937 and 1938. They are young and middle-aged men, and they are still languishing in gaol without charge or trial. Is that a state of affairs that should be allowed to continue without the Government going to the electors and giving an account of their stewardship? During a period of the war many crimes are committed and many people are found with arms. There is also grave suspicion about where the money comes from. I do not deny that something of that kind exists. Any person who breaks the law should stand a trial and receive punishment. I am not defending them. I am defending the many men who are in prison without charge. There is a grave suspicion, indeed, a belief, in Northern Ireland among a section of the people that these men are interned because of political and religious antagonism and intolerance, and that they are denounced, without any knowledge of the crimes they are supposed to have committed, and put into gaol. I asked to see the conditions under which they were living, and the Home Secretary refused to allow me to do so. I understand that the conditions are a public scandal. The Nationalist minority say that there are many members of that body who do not in the slightest break the law, or interfere with the normal procedure of justice or who do not take up arms or purchase arms, or who do not traffic with the enemy. They contend that they ought to be able to interrogate the Government at the polls.
If any Members have a doubt about what is taking place, let me give an example. I was asked to go to a cemetery in Belfast to see the interment of a young man who had died in the Isle of Wight where he had been held on some charge by the Home Secretary of this country. He died of tuberculosis, and his corpse


was taken to Belfast. I cannot understand why I should have been asked to go to the interment. I went to the cemetery and saw the service. There was a mass of armed police such as I have never seen even in Nazi Germany. After the interment the police tramped over the graves and there and at the gates of the cemetery seached every civilian in the crowd. Such disgraceful conduct was enough to arouse hostlity and should not be allowed to go on in Northern Ireland. Decent citizens should protest against this form of Nazi treatment of minorities in that country. The Nationalists justly say that men should not be allowed to continue in prison if the Government do not go to the country in a General Election. Governments during an election go through a process of civilisation, because when they are in contact with the electors the electors are inclined to modify their attitude and exact promises from the Government. Moderate elements sometimes crop up even in the Tory party, and they say, "We object to this going on in our name," and they exact promises from Ministers which lead to a change in policy.
The Nationalist minority say that the persecution of minorities should cease and that it should be put an end to by a process of election. Many people in Northern Ireland say that the Government are existing to a large extent upon the-subsidies that are provided by this House and that Government Departments are packed with the friends—scores of names were given to me—of politicians in Northern Ireland doing jobs at good salaries, and that the taxpayers of this country are having money extracted from them to keep the Government—not a democratic Government—in Northern Ireland going. The Nationalists claim that they have a possible alternative to the present Government and that they could defeat practically every Minister at the polls. If that is true, it is wrong to allow the present state of affairs to continue. The dependants of whose who are interned in Northern Ireland are not given any form of allowance—a most disgraceful thing—and when the minority seek to raise funds to maintain the families of these internees, they are refused the right to engage in many activities such as flag days. Therefore, I say that it is a great pity that though in ordinary times this

House gets very hot and bothered about the struggle for democracy, when there is a chance of showing that no democracy exists in this part of Great Britain we find an absence of Members. If a Division is called, however, they troop into the Lobby, knowing the case neither for nor against, but just voting down any proposal that the Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament should be sent to the electors.
I maintain that there is this strong feeling prevailing, and I say that no Member is true to himself or the public of Northern Ireland if he tries to convince this Committee that the opinion I have expressed is not strongly held in Northern Ireland, because these views are being voiced and being fought out in the background. I say that democracy is not ruling in Northern Ireland, that Nazi tyranny is operating against the minority, and that it is a tyranny which has usurped its power in the most brutal manner. On behalf of the internees, many of whom may be quite innocent men, and on behalf of the citizens of Belfast who feel that the suppression of the City Council is wrong and undemocratic—if there were grafting elements they ought to have been purged—I say that democracy should be allowed to operate through the great bulk of decent men serving on the City Council. There is a demand from the Labour minority that there should be an expression of opinion from the country. Therefore, I am speaking against this Clause because I thing the Government of Northern Ireland and the incompetent Mr. Andrews, a spineless politician, should be sent to the electors to get a verdict upon their activities; and I have no doubt that if the people of Northern Ireland desire democracy to live, they will find some alternative, within the ambit of Parliamentary democracy, to a Government which has been guilty of many heinous crimes.

Mr. Somerset: It speaks well for the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) that he came to Belfast on holiday, and I am really sorry that the Under-Secretary did not grant him permission to go to Eire to continue his stay. It is with great reluctance that I have to introduce a little bit of personal history. The hon. Member when he came to Belfast rang me up on arrival and asked me would


I meet him, and I did so and took him to lunch.

Mr. McGovern: In fairness the hon. Member ought to say that he asked me to ring him up.

Mr. Somerset: Yes, I asked the hon. Member to do so when he came to Belfast. First of all he wanted to borrow a bicycle. The only bicycle we had at home belongs to my small daughter, and I could not see the hon. Member mounting it and getting as far as Monaghan, which I believe was one of the places he wanted to visit. The late Sir Joseph McConnell, who was Member for Antrim, offered to provide the hon. Member with a bicycle, but, after all, I suppose, like many of us he is getting to the age when cycling does not appeal to him so much. However, it so happened that at my request we lunched together in a public restaurant. There were seven of us at table, I think. One of the men was a disgruntled member of the Belfast City Corporation—now the intimate friend of the hon. Member. I refer to Councillor S. B. Thompson. It was really "jam" for this councillor to have someone to whom he could unburden his soul, and naturally he took the hon. Member under his wing as a prize exhibit and took him over to the Corporation Chambers. There he met quite a number of members of the council. I regret that a great number of them are disgruntled. There, among other things, they were photographed together, which is something they always do in Belfast, though I escaped on this occasion.

Mr. George Griffiths: Who paid for the lunch?

Mr. Somerset: I paid for the lunch and I will pay for the lunch of the hon. Member if he comes to Belfast. As I say, this photograph was taken. The hon. Member has mentioned the Lord Mayor. One of the things which the Lord Mayor himself told me was "They wanted me to go into the group with them but I was not going to be photographed like that." Those are his own words. He was not going to be associated with the hon. Member and his party. Moreover, the Lord Mayor has assured me that he never asked the hon. Member to put forward his case in this Chamber. The hon. Member must have had a very busy fortnight. He says that he was refused permission to visit the prison. That is a

definite statement which I am bound to deny. My Friend the late Member for East Belfast, now Lord Glentoran, told me that in the last day or two arrangements were made for the hon. Member to go into the prison, but that in spite of—

Mr. McGovern: On a point of accuracy. Lord Glentoran told me that opportunity would be given to me to visit the prison. He said that he would see the Home Secretary and get the permit. It was conveyed to me by a Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament that I had to telephone the Home Secretary to get the necessary permission. I did so, and was told that the Home Secretary had laid it down that I should not be allowed to visit the prison. His secretary said that he regretted this very much, but he was only conveying to me the decision of his chief. I thought the arrangement had been made, but permission was definitely refused, and the Home Secretary stated in the Press that he had refused permission.

Mr. Somerset: My information is that there was no question about it. Lord Glentoran did make the necessary arrangements but it was in the week during which the hon. Member went to Eire. The fault was not in the office of Lord Glentoran. With regard to the interned men, it is a well-known fact that they have the right to appeal when they want to do so. They can ask that their cases should be heard, but as is the case with all the I.R.A. men they refuse to recognise the court, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. I do not want to delay the proceedings here by describing any more of the hen. Member's movements during his stay in Belfast, but it is remarkable that he should have delivered in this Chamber the speech which he made concerning one of the strongest men in the Ulster Parliament, Sir Dawson Bates. He has a very hard task. What happened near my home on Saturday last? A bomb was thrown at the police barracks during the blackout, three women were wounded and two policemen shot, one of them dead. Sir Dawson Bates has a terrible task and he deserves the thanks of every decent man in Northern Ireland. I assure him that he has their confidence.
As to the proposal to exclude Northern Ireland from the Bill we in Northern Ireland are in exactly the same position as you here. We have the 1939 register


which would not be very reliable. We have no conscription in Northern Ireland. When the Government of the day first brought in the Military Service Bill it included Northern Ireland, but it was subsequently proposed that Northern Ireland should be left out. We did what we could to have Northern Ireland included and on that issue we voted against the Government which we were sent here to support. I spoke in the House demanding that we should be included but we were not. What has happened as a consequence? Young men on our side have voluntarily enlisted in thousands and we have many workers over here on munitions. What chance is there of a fair election now? There are over 100,000 voters in my constituency of North Belfast, where the greatest damage in Belfast was done by air raids. Thousands of houses were destroyed and many thousands of men and women were killed, yet in those circumstances it is still suggested that we should hold an election and work on the old register. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and we have as good a right to this postponement as you have.
What happened in connection with the Belfast Corporation was that there was a scandal about the tuberculosis hospital. A public inquiry was instituted and disclosed a very alarming state of affairs. The Home Secretary told the Corporation to put their house in order or he would take action about it. A committee was appointed including Nationalists, Labour men, Conservatives and an Independent. They got out a report. The council said then: "Very well, you can drop it all. Thank you very much we have no further use for you." The Government of Northern Ireland could have done nothing else but bring in the Bill which has been brought in to deal with the situation. They have not dissolved the Corporation. Several of the men whom the hon. Member for Shettleston met and to whom he talked about their grievances, intimated that if the Bill became law they would resign in a body but they were still there when the hon. Gentleman was in Belfast.

Mr. McGovern: Is it not true that the Belfast Corporation accepted something like 11 of the 13 proposals of the Government and that the dispute on the remaining points was of very small consequence;

and that in the midst of the negotiations, the Government closed down and threatened a dissolution?

Mr. Somerset: There is no question of that. The authority of the Home Secretary having been flouted, he did the only thing he could. About the three administrators, who have been appointed, it is marvellous that they took the thing on. Their appointment is for four years. As regards the two Parliamentary by-elections to which reference has been made, as the hon. Gentleman said, the first was for the seat of the late Prime Minister. The present member is a strong Unionist, a strong Orangeman and a Church man—a thoroughly good man. [Laughter.] I do not see why those facts should be thought of as laughable. In the other by-election, at Willowfield, I would point out that the successful candidate, Alderman Midgley, speaking at Albert-bridge Hall on 28th November, 1941, said:
There must be no alteration of Northern Ireland's political status without the consent of the Northern Ireland people, which meant that a referendum would have to be taken on the issue, and he (Alderman Midgley), had not, and would not, associate himself with any policy which sought to separate Northern Ireland from its association with the British Commonwealth, or from its association with Great Britain.
Our big point is to keep up our good relations with this country. I am sorry to talk about these domestic things, but so much has been made of them, that I had to say something about them. I appeal to this Committee on the broader issue to give us exactly what you are taking for yourselves. Do not try to make us have an election at this time, when it would be a farce.

Viscount Castlereagh: Unfortunately I was not present when the Second Reading Debate took place. I was serving in my unit. Maybe it was my fault for not finding out that the question of Northern Ireland was to be raised. However, I read the speeches to the best of my ability, including, with considerable interest, the speech of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). I cannot really believe that this subject need have been raised at all. I cannot see the need for this controversy. I read the speech of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) on the Second Reading, and he made some terrible threats about what he was going to say


about Northern Ireland. I would like to say to him that my colleagues and myself are not afraid of any of these terrible threats, but we are afraid of something far worse—at least I am—and that is, a repetition of that dreadful state of affairs which took place at the end of the last war and a few years afterwards. Some of it is going on now. People armed with tommy guns and other lethal weapons are shooting down our policemen, and that probably is the answer to the hon. Member for Shettleston as to why a certain number of people are being kept in prison under rather different circumstances than those under which people are kept in prison here under the Emergency Powers Act.
I suppose the majority of hon. Members have not the experience of some of us of what happened in Ireland at the end of the last war and the few years that followed. I had the unpleasant experience of my father's house having been shot up. I do not pretend to be a brave person. I have been bombed several times in this war. I was terrified, I admit. On the journey abroad with my unit there were moments in the convoy when, again, I was terrified, but when one is in uniform it is a different matter; it is one's job. When it comes to civil war, the situation is very different, and that is one thing which I hope will never recur. I cannot help feeling that several people have been over to Ireland and have returned rather like Columbus, thinking that they have discovered the whole thing.
The hon. Member for Shettleston has been to Belfast recently. As an officer I recently went to Bagdad. The moment a grateful War Office will give me permission to go to Northern Ireland, I hope to go there and take up all those questions which were debated the other day, and which are being debated to-day. I hope that the hon. Member for Shettleston will accompany me if he can get away. Various points were raised in the Debate. One of them which I would like to discuss now is this question of conscription which was discussed by the hon. Member for North Belfast (Mr. Somerset). Again I must refer to the hon. Member for Shettleston. I know that he is a doughty debater but an eminently fair one. When he was talking about conscription the other day—I only read his

speech—I think he was rather hurting the feelings of Members of this House who represent Northern Ireland. It was not lour fault that conscription was not introduced. I understand that Mr. de Valera announced that in his opinion it would be a bad move to have conscription for Northern Ireland, and conscription was cut out. The voluntary system generally means that the best young men, the best of your manhood, are the people who come forward first. In Northern Ireland the situation is exactly that. The best of our people have come forward. That means that a certain residue are going to be left behind. They may be just as good, but they hold rather different views, and the views of that minority are that Northern Ireland should be joined up with the South of Ireland. In war-time, as everybody knows, it would mean that Northern Ireland would have to become neutral.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Member is discussing conscription in Northern Ireland. The question before the Committee is whether the Clause shall stand part of the Bill. The two must not be connected.

Viscount Castlereagh: I bow to your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, but the point was raised on Second Reading. That was one of the reasons put forward, that was an excuse why the Bill should not apply to Northern Ireland.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that on this Clause the hon. Member may not answer speeches made on Second Reading.

Viscount Castlereagh: I again bow to your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, and apologise for delaying the Committee. There was also the question raised that we had not a Coalition Government in Northern Ireland. Would I be in Order if I made one or two remarks on that subject?

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that that probably comes nearer the Clause.

Viscount Castlereagh: I think the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said that in his view, because we had not a Coalition Government in Northern Ireland, it was a good reason why prolongation should not be given to the Northern Ireland Government. With all due respect to the hon. Member, I do not


think that a very fair point, for this reason. The idea of Coalition is that the biggest party coalesces with the largest minority, but when the largest minority refuse to take their seats—whether they draw their salaries, I do not know—it makes the situation rather difficult. Again, supposing the largest minority, the Nationalists, did actually take their place and came into a Coalition Government, there would be the most extraordinary situation of the Unionist members doing their utmost to prosecute the war and a Nationalist minority doing their utmost to make Northern Ireland neutral. In my view that is not a very good idea for running a Coalition Government. I will not detain the Committee for more than a few moments, but I would like to make a point raised, again, by the hon. Member for Ipswich". In the course of his speech he said that, after listening to various speeches:
… the reflection passed through my mind if we could get rid of Northern Ireland by handing it over to the people to whom it naturally belongs …"—[OFFICIAI, REPORT, 30th September, 1942; col. 867, Vol. 383.]
I do not quite know whether he quite realised what he was saying. He does not seem to realise that if we did as he suggested, we should hand over a very valuable training ground for military purposes. There are quite a number of American troops there, and quite a number of aircraft training centres. Even more important, there are seaplane bases there doing valuable work in trying to win the Battle of the Atlantic, which the Prime Minister said recently is the most important thing of all. I would ask the hon. Member to recollect that these men are doing magnificent work in Coastal Command in Catalinas, Short Sunderlands and other machines. If you are really to hand us over to the South of Ireland, then this valuable area is lost.
In conclusion, I would say that if we are to have an election in Northern Ireland, it means that we shall fight that election, as the hon. Member for North Belfast said, on a 1939 register. A large number of Ulster troops who would be eligible to vote are fighting abroad. There is a battery of my friends from the towns of Newtownards and Bangor, and a great number of them will never come back. The last I heard of them they were in Tobruk. When I inquired at the War

Office about them, I was told they were listed as "zero." It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman opposite has raised more of a debating point, which has just a smack of party politics about it. My colleagues and I will play party politics with anyone when the war is over; but let us for the moment cut out party politics, and do our utmost to carry on the prosecution of the war successfully.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I am very diffident about intervening in this Debate, but I feel that the plea put forward by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) should not be accepted by the Committee. We have in the North of Ireland an extremely difficult and embarrassing situation, and I cannot conceive that a General Election taking place in the course of the next year could fail to add fuel to the flames already burning in that part of our Commonwealth. I think the feeling of hon. Members with regard to Ireland at present is to do and say nothing that will add further difficulty to the situation of that unhappy country. We have, as the Noble Lord has just said, a large number of American troops there, and it would be exceedingly unfortunate if the controversies arising from a General Election were to be introduced in the presence of those American troops, who have been so well received by all sections of the population. I have always tried to encourage better feeling in Ireland: years ago I was in a national movement there whose main purpose was to bring the various sections of public opinion in Ireland more closely together; and I do not want to see anything happen which would make feeling worse in that country.
I admire very much the interest taken by the hon. Member for Shettleston in the affairs of Northern Ireland. I know he is inspired by the highest motives. I know that he feels deeply about certain events in Northern Ireland. I am sure that if he had the opportunity he would make a very great contribution to bringing about a happier state of affairs there, but this proposal of his is not calculated to make things better. I am sorry that certain personalities have been introduced in this Debate. I would like to think kindly of everybody, and the hon. Gentleman went a little far in some of the personal allusions he made. We do not help to get a better atmosphere and a more kindly outlook by observations of that sort. The


real consideration is whether it is wise, in the present political situation in Ulster, to have a General Election early next year. I say that careful consideration of the contingencies that are bound to arise, the difficulties that will develop, and the thousand and one problems, of personal and domestic and entirely Ulster quality, that will be presented during an election would arouse feelings that many of us would wish were dead for all time. I hope that the hon. Member will, therefore, support the Government in carrying the Clause.

Professor Savory: I sat here during the whole of the Debate on the Second Reading, listening, without moving a muscle, to various diatribes and attacks upon Ulster. I wanted very much to speak upon that occasion, but as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for County Down (Dr. Little) were here, I thought it better, as they were not able to come over this week, to reserve what I had to say for this occasion. I understand, from what was said in the speeches on the Second Reading and by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovem) to-day, that three. reasons have been brought forward why the Parliament of Northern Ireland should not be prolonged. The first was that the constitution of the Parliament of Northern Ireland was—so it was argued—unsatisfactory. The second was that the Government of Northern Ireland had suspended the Belfast Corporation. One Member devoted the whole of his speech to that subject, and it was raised again to-day by the hon. Member for Shettleston. The third reason was that we should have imitated the Imperial Parliament and adopted a form of Coalition Government.

Mr. Maxton: Nobody suggested that.

Professor Savory: Yes, I have it here in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am perfectly prepared to refer to it.

Mr. Maxton: I wish the hon. Member would do so.

Professor Savory: I give my word of honour that I heard it.

Mr. Maxton: But I should like the quotation from the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Professor Savory: What struck me as perhaps the strongest of all the speeches was that made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), who, I am glad to see, is in his place. He said:
So far as I can understand from my contacts in Northern Ireland, the majority of the people there would like a General Election. They are sick to death of their present Government and consider it to be a complete fake and a ramp, i the truth were told. About some of the abominable things that that Government does I shall speak on some other day, Mr. Speaker, if I can catch your eye "—[OFFICIAI REPORT, 30th September, 1942; col. 867, Vol. 383.]

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): We must have very much shorter quotations from Second Reading speeches, and not too much detail about the Government of Northern Ireland.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: On a point of Order. Both on the Second Reading and to-day, the hon. Member for Shettleston. (Mr. McGovern) has very severely attacked the members of the Northern Ireland Government. Surely it is up to us to take every opportunity we have to reply to those attacks?

The Temporary Chairman: This is a Committee discussion, on a particular point. I should not, I think, rule too closely on that matter, but I do not think that very long quotations or very long explanations of the position of the Northern Ireland Government are justified on the Committee stage of this Bill.

Professor Savory: Thank you, Mr. Williams. I had just come to the end of the quotation, I am glad to say. I should like to reply to the hon. Member for Ipswich, so far as his observations referred to this Clause, I will invite the hon. Member to come over to Belfast. I will offer him the hospitality of my humble roof, and, if he will come, I will take him round Belfast, and Northern Ireland generally, and show what has been done by this Government in the last 20 years: how the whole Province has been completely transformed, and how schools have sprung up in every direction. I will guarantee, if the hon. Gentleman will accept my invitation, to protect him from a repetition of the unfortunate misadventures which befell the celebrated Mr. Pickwick when he visited Ipswich, and I will prove, I think, to the hon. Gentleman that the late Lord Craigavon did more for Ulster than even Cardinal Wolsey did for


Ipswich. Cardinal Wolsey was the greatest statesman that the ancient borough has produced, with, of course, the sole exception of the existing Member. During the last 33 years that I have lived in Northern Ireland our experience has always been that we have invited these gentlemen, these exceedingly severe critics, to Ulster, who, when they have seen what the Government of Northern Ireland have done, have been completely converted. Goldsmith was a very great Irish poet and he used these words which are applicable to these gentlemen:
And fools, who came to scoff, remained to pray.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) laid stress upon what he called "the defective constitution of the Parliament of Northern Ireland." Indeed we are told that the Labour Members sent a deputation over here and were received by the Labour party in this House in order to state their reasons why the Parliament of Northern Ireland should not be prolonged. I should like to say in this connection that these gentlemen representing the Labour party might have asked their local representatives also to give them a hearing. I have the honour to be the Secretary of the Ulster Unionist Parliamentary Party and should have been the channel of communication. I would have gladly arranged a meeting with all our representatives and we should have heard what these Labour gentlemen had to say. However, a memorandum has been presented by the members of the Labour Party and a memorandum also by the Nationalists in which they say that they laid proposals before the Cabinet, the Ministers here and the leading Members of Parliament. I am not a leading Member of Parliament and therefore I was not favoured with one of these manifestoes. I think that perhaps the real reason why they did not send it to me was rather that they knew I was too well acquainted with the facts and that I was able to answer them. What is the allegation put forward against renewing our House of Commons? They say—this is a quotation of only one sentence—"
The Six Counties Government "——
that is what they call it; they will not give it the name of Ulster—
has so far been kept in office by retrograde sectarianism and by the machinery of gerrymandering constituencies.

As far as retrograde sectarianism is concerned I have nothing to say except to make this observation from my experience of over a third of a century in Ulster. Our religion so far from being retrograde is exceedingly progressive and enlightened, I fully admit however that that is a question of opinion, but the charge that we gerrymandered the constituencies is a statement of fact. They go on to allege that "proportional representation was an essential part of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, designed to secure a degree of fair representation to the minority but it was swept away by the Northern Ireland Government for obvious reasons." Fortunately, the facts and figures are there. The last election under proportional representation took place in the year 1925. The Nationalists and Republicans together succeeded in obtaining 12 seats. The first election under single member constituencies took place in the year 1929. What happened? The Nationalists and Republicans had eleven seats. They gained one seat in Belfast at the expense of Labour and they lost two seats, one in Antrim and one in Armagh.

The Temporary Chairman: I really cannot see how proportional representation has anything to do with Clause 2 of this Bill.

Professor Savory: I only felt it right to point out in reply to these statements that the constituencies have been gerrymandered, that they could not have been gerrymandered because the difference between the number elected under proportional representation and the number elected by the single member constituencies is only one representative. If the constituencies had been gerrymandered, the Nationalists would not have lost only one seat. Whereas they had 12 representatives under proportional representation, they had 11 under the single member constituencies. That was the point of my argument, and I think that it is a statement which is really relevant to the question because these gentlemen said that you must not renew this Parliament of Northern Ireland because of its unsatisfactory constitution.

The Temporary Chairman: I do not think that going back into these figures can possibly be allowed as relevant, certainy not at any length, on this Motion that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

Professor Savory: Thank you, Mr. Williams. I bow to your Ruling and I pass on to the second point upon which great play has been made to-day.

Dr. Russell Thomas: On a point of Order. I was present during the speech of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and tremendous latitude was allowed to him to discuss the de-merits of the Northern Ireland Parliament at considerable length and I do not see why my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Belfast (Professor Savory) is really out of Order in view of the speech of the hon. Gentleman.

The Temporary Chairman: We may have had one long speech or several, I was not there to listen, but that is no reason why we should have a succession of long speeches.

Mr. Maxton: Do I understand you, Mr. Williams, to say that there is now some time limit imposed upon speeches?

The Temporary Chairman: No; nothing of the sort. If the Chair allowed latitude to an hon. Member to explain a technical point that point should not be taken to undue length.

Mr. Woodburn: I gather that the hon. Member for Belfast University (Professor Savory) is arguing in his comparison between the one election and the other that the fact that there was only a small change of one seat was an argument that there was no change in the election.

The Temporary Chairman: That is going back to the point which I have already ruled out of Order.

Professor Savory: May I be allowed to pass to the second point which was developed at great length by the hon. Member for Shettleston both to-day and on the Second Reading, namely, the fact that because the Government of Northern Ireland have passed through both Houses a Bill for the reform of the Belfast Corporation that is a very good reason for not prolonging the Parliament of Northern Ireland?

Mr. MeGovern: It is only one of the many reasons.

Professor Savory: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in his Second Reading speech devoted the greater part of it to this point and I think I might be in order in dealing with it because it is very important and great play has been made with it in this Debate. Speaking as a representative of the Queen's University of Belfast I can say that we maintain the best possible relations both with the corporation of Belfast and with the Gcvernment of Northern Ireland. Even if I had an opinion on this controversial matter, wild horses would not drag it from me but I would like to say that this is not an act of Nazidom, not a coup d'état, but that this Bill for the reform of the Belfast Corporation was carried by enormous majorities through the House of Commons and through the Senate of Northern Ireland. It was fully debated and discussed; it was not an executive act, as one might have been led to believe from this discussion. It was a Bill and it was passed into law on receiving the Royal Assent from His Grace the Governor of Northern Ireland. My point is this: that no one has ever argued that this House of Commons is to be a court of appeal from the Government of Northern Ireland. The Parliament of Northern Ireland has acted in this respect within its powers and what right have you to set this House up as a court of appeal from the Parliament of Northern Ireland on a question of this great importance?
With regard to the point that because we have not adopted a Coalition Government like you here and that, therefore, our Parliament should not be prolonged I would like to quote from a Question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) who said:
While recognising the very strong case against an election in these circumstances would it not be a reasonable thing to suggest that roms endeavour should be made to formulate a National Government on the lines of this Parliament in order to prolong its life? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1942; col. 168, Vol. 382.]
Has your Coalition Government over here been such an immense success that you wish to impose it upon Northern Ireland? One of the greatest, if not the greatest, of your Prime Ministers used this very apt phrase:
England does not love coalitions.
Those are words pronounced in this House some 90 years ago by the great Disraeli.


Of course they referred to the Coalition of Whigs and Peelites which he had facing him but I have no doubt that he was going back to the still more celebrated Coalition of Fox and North, a Coalition which the younger Pitt overthrew and appealed successfully to the country—

The Temporary Chairman: I cannot see that Pitt has anything whatever to do with Clause 2 of this Bill.

Professor Savory: I am always ready to bow to your ruling, Mr. Williams, but I would like to say this. When these people say, "Why haven't you a Coalition Government "? I say, "If you have a Coalition it means you have to coalesce with someone." You cannot have a coalition without coalescing With whom do you intend to invite the Government of Northern Ireland to coalesce? Is it with six Nationalist Members, four of whom are absentees after having taken the oath and thereby earned the right to their salaries and who have never once, I am told, put in an appearance? Of the remaining two Nationalists one is irregular in his attendance, while the other one is a successor to the late Mr. Joseph Devlin, who was a distinguished Member of this House. He is the only one who attends regularly. This is the largest section of the opposition. What about coalescing with the Labour party? Well, there are three members of the Labour party. I know them all; I have studied their speeches and every man's hand is against the other man's. If one can judge by what they have said they differ far more from one another than from the Government of Northern Ireland. I hope this House will realise that conditions for a coalition in Northern Ireland are very different from what they are over here.
I know that the greatest crime one can commit in this House is to make too long a speech because time is so limited and there are other Members who wish to address the Committee. Therefore, I will content myself with this conclusion: Suppose you represent a constituency where a large majority has voted against you at the last election because it was a three-cornered fight. The majority of your electors have voted against you and therefore, you represent a minority. You were elected not by a majority but merely by a plurality. Now, if a large proportion of your electors are Irish Nationalists your

action in attacking Ulster to-day can of course be fully justified because you must placate a certain section of your constituency by twisting the tail of the Ulster lion.

Mr. Stokes: I rise to speak in support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) said at the opening of this Debate and to oppose this Clause. First, perhaps, I had best deal with the remarks of the Noble Lord the Member for Down (Viscount Castlereagh) à propos my attitude in this matter. I am glad to see him back safely from Bagdad. He said he was afraid that if we had another election in Northern Ireland, there would be a repetition of what happened before in the way of civil strife, more especially if these contentious matters continued to be discussed in this House. I want to make it clear that it is for that very reason that I wish to see a change of Government in Northern Ireland. I fear that if the present situation—the miserably bad Government—continues there will be an ever increasing amount of discontent in Northern Ireland and that we shall have a repetition of the very thing which the Noble Lord fears. He then went on to make what seemed to me to be a fundamental admission, and one of which I hope Members of both the Northern Ireland and the Eire Government will take note. In referring to some remarks I had made about returning Northern Ireland to the people to whom it belonged, he said that if we did that it would mean handing over the bases to Eire, and the country would become neutral. I was delighted to hear him admit that the country is now invaded and is not in the hands of the Irish people to whom it rightly belongs.

Viscount Castlereagh: In Northern Ireland we are proud to be part of the British Empire, and we do our best to fight for it.

Mr. Stokes: I do not dispute with the Noble Lord what he says about fighting for the Empire. I have elicited from him the admission that the present situation in Northern Ireland is not right and that, in fact, Northern Ireland is invaded by people who have no right to rule it. That, however, is by the way. The important point I want to make is that it would not necessarily follow that, if there were a unified Ireland as a result of a new control in Northern Ireland, we should


have to hand over the Northern bases. If we could get—and I believe we could, with good will on both sides—a union of North and South, it might very well be that we should get the use of the Southern Irish bases as well. That point ought not to be lost sight of. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast University (Professor Savory), I will, of course, gladly accept his invitation to visit Ulster with him at the earliest possible opportunity. I shall take the greatest delight in going round with him. Unfortunately, my contacts with Northern Ireland have been in the main of a business and not of a political nature. I should be interested to have first-hand evidence from the hon. Member of the state of affairs which he claims exists there.

Sir W. Allen: If the Home Secretary will allow the hon. Member to go.

Mr. Stokes: I am on such terms with the Home Secretary that I am sure he will be glad to see me out of the country. I am not sure that Cardinal Wolsey will not turn in his grave at the suggestion that the present Member for Ipswich competes with him in statesmanship; I shall however hope that with his inspiration before me, I may one day achieve some degree of like eminence. But in any event we shall be delighted to see the hon. Member for Belfast University in Ipswich, and I shall be delighted to take part in a debate with him in the Borough on the Irish situation. As to the hon. Member's statements about fair representation, I ask the Committee to bear in mind that, when quoting figures in support of his argument that there is fair representation, he failed to point out that of the 52 seats, 39 are held by Unionists, who polled only 55 per cent. of the votes cast. How that can be called fair representation, I fail to understand.

Professor Savory: I would point out to the hon. Member that four of those 52 seats are held by Members returned by the University, and therefore, the percentage which he gives is not really quite fair.

Mr. Stokes: That is not important to my main argument. I come now to the main point that I want to make. The hon. Member complained that some of us had described the Northern Ireland Parliament as a racket and a ramp. I shall seek to prove by evidence other than my own, and

in support of my contention that this Clause ought not to stand part of the Bill, that those terms are fundamentally correct. I would remind the Committee that the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, under which the Northern Ireland Government functions, states:
In the exercise of their powers to make laws under this Act, the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall not make a law so as either directly or indirectly to establish or endow any religion, or prohibit or restrict the free exercise thereof, or give a preference, privilege or advantage, or impose any disability or disadvantage on account of religious beliefs.
I want to show, in support of my contention that the Clause should not stand part, that this, is not being done, and that the vilest discrimination is being shown against people on account of their religious beliefs. I will quote some extracts from what eminent people in Northern Ireland, and others, have said on the question of the Northern Ireland Government. At the time of Lord Craigavon's death, the following was written in the "Manchester Guardian":
The Government of Northern Ireland is unique in the annals of Parliamentary Government in its stability. Lord Craigavon was its first Prime Minister, and two others of the present Ministers have sat with him in the Cabinet continuously since the summer of 1921. The Unionist party is in perpetual power. It is the perfect example of Government by caucus. There are substantial minorities, Nationalist, Republican, and Labour, but by electoral and administrative manipulation, the scales are weighted against them.
It goes on to say:
The large proportion of office holders in a small House of Commons has always tended to give undue weight to the Executive and the maintenance of the orthodoxy on which it exists.
I will quote now from what was said by Mr. T. Henderson, who is, I understand, an Independent Partitionist Member, in a speech in the Six Counties Parliament on 12th March, 1940:—
He was amazed at the cost of running the Government. It was no wonder that some of the friends of the Government had advocated the appointment of commissioners to run the country. The Northern Government was only the agent for the British Government and they had practically nothing to do. The entire affairs of the country were administered by British Ministries, the Ministry of Food, etc. The millions of pounds required to run the Government could be saved if the Government stopped its activities for the duration of the war. The Government was only an ornamental Government, it had no power, it existed simply to provide jobs for wealthy friends of Ministers and others not so well-to-do, and was the most costly Government in the world.


That is evidence from one of the Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament. I will quote some more disturbing statements from two former Parliamentary Secretaries, who, unlike Parliamentary Secretaries usually, saw fit to resign. In 1940, Mr. Warner was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, and he resigned because of the alleged extravagance and inefficiency of the Administration. He stated that expenditure on the police showed an utter disregard for public money. His resignation was followed shortly afterwards—I am not sure of the exact date—by the resignation of Colonel A. R. Gordon, who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, and who stated:
The Government, as at present constistuted, is, by the nature of its personnel, lacking in drive and energy and utterly lacking in understanding of what war means, and it is unable to sustain us in the ordeal that is before us.
Finally, I would like to quote a letter which was published recently in one of the more reputable journals in this country, "The Tribune." It is from a serving member of His Majesty's Forces who, until recently, was resident in Northern Ireland in the Forces, and has had, as he claims, ample opportunity of studying this matter at first hand. He concludes his letter as follows:
It is true that the Nationalists favour the neutrality of Ireland, but can we blame them? After 21 years of political trickery and gangsterism, can we be surprised that there is no enthusiasm to defend imperialism?

The Temporary Chairman: I have allowed the hon. Member considerable latitude, but I cannot see how any of these quotations has any relation to the matter before the Committee.

Mr. Stokes: What I am trying to show is that this Clause should not stand part of the Bill on account of the villainies of the Northern Ireland Government, and I am giving evidence that there is a most disgraceful discrimination shown against Catholics, which is quite contrary to the Constitution.

The Temporary Chairman: I think we can have illustrations, but I do not think the one narrow point whether you should have an election now or in two years' time can be covered in this way by a long series of illustrations.

Mr. Stokes: Am I to understand that I may not quote from anyone?

The Temporary Chairman: I said a long series of illustrations.

Mr. Silverman: Would it be out of Order, in discussing whether the Parliament should have its existence prolonged, to argue that it was abusing the authority that it at present enjoyed?

The Temporary Chairman: That would not be out of Order.

Earl Winterton: With no sympathy for the hon. Member's point of view, is it not impossible for the Committee, or even for the Chair, to avoid the fact that under the Bill it is possible to discuss the whole position of the Ulster Parliament, because the question is whether it should be allowed to continue in its present condition?

The Temporary Chairman: I think that goes rather far. The hon. Member was quoting not what the Ulster Parliament was doing, but other people's opinions of it, and although I have allowed a certain amount of illustration, I think illustration can be carried too far.

Mr. Stokes: May I give one more short quotation from a soldier who has been serving in Northern Ireland?
I am not exaggerating when I say that predominantly Catholic districts have developed into ghettos ruled by police tyranny and suppression. Young men known to hold non-Unionist views have been dragged from their homes at the dead of night and taken in armed vans to prison (not by full time police but by B. Specials) where they rot without charge with no prospect of trial and no communication with their families or legal help ",
which is pretty well what the hon. Member for Shettleston said. I want to call attention to a particular incident in support of my claim, which happened quite recently. I do not support people dashing about with arms and shooting at policemen, but I want to call attention to the Belfast trial of the six young men who were sentenced to death on account of the shooting of a Belfast policeman. The point I wish to make deals simply with the official attitude of the Belfast Government in this matter. The background of that affair is the dreadful fact, as is indicated in the quotation that I have just read, that the Northern Ireland


Government are in the habit of sending armed police vans regularly into the Catholic working-class districts and beating up the Catholic workers without reason or rhyme. The method of selecting the jury shows the complete lack of fairness of the Northern Ireland Government. The empanelment of the jury was taken from 450 citizens. It was done in that way in order to prevent any Catholics sitting on the jury. There are over 100,000 Catholics in Belfast, but, astonishing to relate, not more than 50 were on the panel. The Government, as the names were called, objected to 39 members. I do not say that all were Catholics, but they would not have a single Catholic or woman on that jury. That means that those people who were supposed to be facing fair trial by jury were in fact tried by their enemies, people politically opposed to them. The Judge, in his summing up, said that but for the fact that the dead man was a policeman the verdict would be one of manslaughter; as he was a policeman it must be one of murder, though there was clearly no intent to kill. It is time this House sat up and took notice of what the Northern Parliament is doing. It is outrageous that that kind of thing should go on. In the end they hanged the man who, it was proved, did not kill the policeman. Some of the shots in the body came from that man's gun, but the fatal bullet did not fit the gun of the man who was hung.
It is time we took more interest in what is going on over there, because in my opinion and in that of others the Government are not fit to hold the position they do hold. The hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) suggested that an election would lead to more disorder, especially with American troops there, but why have an election? The matter can be dealt with in another way. In my view it would be to the advantage of everyone, North and South, and this country as well, if the Government of Northern Ireland were suspended, and, for that reason, I support the hon. Member for Shettleston in opposing the Clause.

Mr. Stephen: I desire to support my hon. Friend in his opposition to this Clause. I do not think this House should allow the Irish Parliament to be prolonged. My hon. Friend has given very good evidence that the opinion of most people in the Six Counties is in favour of a General Election and no

prolongation of Parliament. My hon. Friend urged that respect should be shown for the views of those who are in a minority in the Irish Parliament. The Nationalists and the Labour party are strongly of opinion against a prolongation of the Six Counties Parliament, and thiey desire a General Election.
My hon. Friend gave instances of the bad treatment that is being meted out to members of the minority in the Six Counties and the internment of the citizens of Northern Ireland without any trial. I remember that when I came into this Parliament things were being done in Northern Ireland that aroused tremendous discontent. In the West of Scotland and other parts of Britain there was strong criticism of the Ulster Government. We could get no opportunity because of the constitution to raise our protest against these happenings on the Floor of this House. That treatment is going en still and the people in Ireland and this House would not be justified in acceding to the request of the Government in Ulster to prolong their Parliament. There is one point that has evidently been misunderstood by spokesmen for the Ulster Government. They complain about the attack that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston on the Six Counties Home Secretary, Sir Dawson Bates. The hon. Member did not make an attack on Sir Dawson Bates. What he did was to report the attack that was made upon him in the Stormount Parliament. He gave a report on what he heard in that Parliament of the charges made against the Heme Secretary. The statements about Sir Dawson Bates were made by Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament and not by the hon. Member for Shettleston.
There is one difficulty which I admit in connection with an election. That is the 1939 electoral roll. If, however, the people in the Six Counties are willing to waive that difficulty, if they are anxious for a General Election and are against the Government, as the by-elections seem to show, we should not allow a prolongation of their Parliament. The by-election results are a lot more significant than the hon. Member who gave an account of them would lead the Committee to suppose. They seem to show that the people who had formerly supported the Six Counties Government


are now overwhelmingly against them. If the people want a General Election, we should not be a party to allowing the Six Counties Government to avoid going to their constituents. The overwhelming majority desire to have the opportunity of expressing judgment on their Government. Everything that was said in regard to Belfast Corporation might be said with equal effect against the Six Counties Government. This House is not justified in continuing the life of the Northern Ireland Parliament against the overwhelming opinion of the people in the Six Counties.

Mr. Gallacher: When the Minister introduced this Bill he said in effect that it would never do to interfere with the Northern Ireland Government as Mr. Andrews would tell him to mind his own business. But he should have told Mr. Andrews when he was asking for a new lease of life for his Parliament that it was his business to get a Government that would bring about the greatest possible amount of unity in Northern Ireland. That was a big job. Through bringing about a greater measure of unity in Northern Ireland they would bring about a growing measure of unity between Northern and Southern Ireland, and that was a still bigger job. The Northern Ireland Government, however, have adopted the same attitude towards unity as the Prime Minister in his recent speech adopted towards unity of the mass movement of India. It is continually aggravating and worsening the situation. There are forces representing the Labour movement and other progressive sections in Northern Ireland, and if they were taken into the Government and a Government actually representing the people was instituted, a big change would take place in the situation.
One could dwell a long time on the terrible conditions that obtain there. There is absolute terror ruling in parts of Ireland. Nobody would encourage or justify the terroristic tactics of those who are so keen for Ireland but who are doing Ireland such considerable injury by pursuing a wrong policy. Nothing, however, can justify the conduct of the Andrews Government and the forces that are being used by that Government. Therefore, if the Minister is going to accept the responsibility that the sponsorship of this Bill

places on him, he must talk to the Andrews Government, he must let them know that they are doing a great disservice to this country and the cause of the democratic peoples if they maintain the divisions and the differences that continue to exist. If you read some of the Press, listen to some of the speeches and watch the things that are going on, you would think that the Andrews Government and many of those associated with them were living in the old evil days when every method of aggravating and tormenting political and religious opponents and exacerbating differences were adopted. I remember what used to happen in the old days when there were people from this House and the House of Lords stirring up sedition and carrying on subversive agitation. I worked in Belfast at the time of the worst conflicts over there. There are people in this House and in the Andrews Government who are living in that period.
They do not understand the situation that confronts the people of Ireland, the people of this country and the people of Europe. The Minister has got to make it clear to the Andrews' Government that this one-party Government—and that a party of a most reactionary character—cannot be allowed to maintain itself there. It is all very well for those sitting on the Front Bench to smile, but the people in Northern Ireland cannot smile. The suffering there is terrible.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I was only smiling at my hon. Friend condemning one-party government, that is all.

Mr. Gallacher: In Northern Ireland—where it is a most reactionary one-party Government. I am quite in favour——

Mr. Morrison: Of one-party government?

Mr. Gallacher: Of one-party government.

The Temporary Chairman: I think the hon. Member ought not to be tempted into a discussion on the question of one-party government, even by a Minister.

Mr. Gallacher: I am all in favour of one-party government when there is only one class; that is something that justifies


itself, but where there is a mixed community and there is one-party government by a party of the most reactionary character, it constitutes a danger to this country at the present time. That is something which the Minister cannot smile away. He has a responsibility. Will he accept that responsibility? He has often come before Parliament giving the impression that he was prepared to play the strong man and assert his full power in this, that or the other direction.
Here is one direction where, if ever, there is need for asserting authority. He has authority and it should be asserted. Let us get the best forces in the North of Ireland drawn into the Government from the Labour party and from other progressive associations for the purpose of bringing about what everyone ought to desire, the greatest measure of unity between Falls Road and Shankill Road. That is a big job and it needs a big Government to do it. If we can get a movement that will end the disruption, a movement towards a unity between the Falls Road and the Shankill Road, we shall have travelled far towards getting unity between the North and the South of Ireland. Is the Minister prepared to do something to bring about that desirable end? If so, he will let the Andrews Government know that they must make big and broad changes in the control and direction of affairs in Northern Ireland.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: I feel satisfied that the Committee are ready to come to a decision on this very important subject, but at the same time some things have been said here to-day to which I feel a reply should be given. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has not had the advantage of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) of paying a recent visit to Northern Ireland. I cannot myself see why the Home Secretary should have drawn any distinction between the hon. Member for Ipswich and the hon. Member for Shettleston but it has been done. I take it from the speech of the hon. Member for Shettleston to-day that he has expressed some views which he imbibed during his visit to Southern Ireland.

Mr. Stokes: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member is not aware that I have been to Ireland every year since 1914.

Sir W. Allen: I do not see that that is any reason why there should have been any differentiation between the hon. Member for Shettleston and himself, but there has been a differentiation. The words in which he expressed himself are those which have frequently been given expression to by those who are prepared at all times to condemn Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Shettleston has said that the Northern Ireland Government is behaving in an abominable manner to the minority there. I should like him to tell me where Northern Ireland has misused the powers given to it by the Act of 1930 and has in any way hindered the minority from living their ordinary lives, performing their ordinary duties and making themselves useful public citizens in every way. The "Manchester Guardian" has been quoted to-day. It is a paper that was always against Ulster and always in favour of Southern Ireland. Such letters and speeches as the hon. Member has quoted have frequently appeared in the "Manchester Guardian." Just as frequently we have done our utmost to get the "Manchester Guardian" to publish denials of what has been said, but, for what reason I do not know, the "Manchester Guardian" has refused again and again to publish those replies. There is no secret about that, because it is common knowledge with us in Ireland. It is the same with a large section of the Press in England. When we try to get our view put before the British people publication of it is refused.

Mr. Stokes: In speaking of the "Manchester Guardian" in this way, is the hon. and gallant Member referring to pre-war conditions or only since the Press became; a Downing Street monopoly?

The Temporary Chairman: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member would be in Order in answering that question.

Sir W. Allen: Surely I am at liberty to reply to the hon. Member for Ipswich respecting the impression he has left on the Committee with regard to the speeches that have been published in the "Manchester Guardian," for which we have no use whatever. However, I pass from that subject. Northern Ireland has been vilified in this Committee to-day in the most extraordinary manner. A great deal of the old bitterness has been revived. So


far as we are concerned we want that old bitterness to be dead and buried for ever. That is our feeling.

Mr. Gallacher: There is not much evidence of it.

Sir W. Allen: If any instance can be brought forward of the Government of Northern Ireland having done any injury to any individual because of his religion, I shall be glad to see it.

Mr. McGovern: Would the hon. Member justify the holding of citizens without trial for over five years and refusing to allow those who support them politically even to collect money to maintain their families? Would he say that was an injustice?

Sir W. Allen: The hon. Member must be well aware that the individuals who have been interned have had every liberty given to them to put their case before the authorities, but they have deliberately refused to take advantage of that opportunity. The same thing has happened, as he knows, with regard to the individual who is interned in England. He has had the opportunity time and time again to put his case before the British authorities just as have those who are interned in Northern Ireland, but they have all refused to recognise the Northern Irish Government. They refuse to put their case, and I say that the reason why certain individuals who have been interned refuse to put their case is that they know that they are guilty. That is the only answer I can give to the hon. Member.

Mr. McGovern: Guilty of what? Who is judging it?

Sir W. Allen: If they have the opportunity of appearing before the appropriate authority, the opportunity to discover what charge is against them, but they refused to recognise the Government——

Mr. McGovern: This is an important point. Surely the hon. and gallant Member does not maintain that because an individual refuses to accept an opportunity to appear before a constituted authority, it is not up to those authorities to devise other ways and means, and not keep people in prison for five years or more without any charge against them?

Sir W. Allen: That is a matter of opinion. The Northern Ireland Government have had the greatest difficulty in carrying on just because of these matters referred to by the hon. Member for Ipswich, in regard to Falls Road. The police know very well where ammunition is to be found if they visit those districts.

Mr. Stokes: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member does not mean to deceive the Committee. Surely he will agree that the police who visit those quarters are known as the B. Specials and are not the regular men at all.

Sir W. Allen: The hon. Member shows his ignorance about conditions in Northern Ireland. The ordinary police visit those districts regularly. During this Debate, the Government of Northern Ireland have been made little of, in some of the speeches. I should like the hon. Member for Shettleston to tell us how he would get over the difficulty of the register. There would only be a 25 per cent. toll, and there is no remedy for it at the moment.

Mr. McKinlay: Could not the electors vote a little more often than they usually do at election time?

Sir W. Allen: I do not know what the hon. Member's experience is. It comes to this, that we have made up our minds that as long as the war continues and the Government decide that there shall be no election here, we shall act accordingly. We have done our utmost as a Government and a people for the prosecution of the war, but there are people in Ireland, and in Northern Ireland particularly, who want the defeat of England and who are doing their utmost to bring about that defeat. It is those people who are causing the whole of the trouble, and hon. Members are assisting them by making some of the speeches to-day. I hope that the Motion will be approved by a large majority, to show to Northern Ireland that they have friends here v/ho will support them in their endeavours to stick to the British Government.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I think that the Committee are nearly ready to come to a decision on the Amendment. We have listened to a long Debate, a good deal of which concerned the domestic affairs of Northern Ireland. I confess I


always find it more difficult to reply to a discussion on a question when no comprehensible arguments have been put forward in support of it. Although this appears to be a big day in the annals of the Independent Labour Party, and a three-line whip has evidently been issued, and the attendance of the party has no doubt been such as to earn encomiums from all quarters of the House, yet I have not heard from them any argument that appeals to any logical sense. The legislation which we propose as regards Northern Ireland is purely permissive in character. Nothing that we do to-day can ensure that there is no election in Northern Ireland for a period of 18 months. The question of holding or not holding a General Election in Northern Ireland will fall to be decided by the proper constitutional procedure, which is similar in Northern Ireland to the procedure here. So far as I can make out, the only reason adduced by the opponents of the Motion to approve Clause 2 is that they dislike the present Government of Northern Ireland. That is, in effect, what all their arguments boil down to.

Mr. McGovern: We are sympathetic.

Mr. Peake: I understand that the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) sympathises with one, if not two, of the Opposition parties in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McGovern: I sympathise with the three parties when they tell me that they want a General Election. I think they have a right to it.

Mr. Peake: The hon. Member sympathises with all the Opposition parties in Northern Ireland, and he" therefore presumably dislikes the Northern Ireland Government. Why he should imagine that, if a General Election is forced upon Northern Ireland in March next by the omission of Clause 2 from the Bill, there will be a Government in Northern Ireland which he will like better than the present one, I cannot understand. In election after election a Unionist Government has been returned in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member, in his Second Reading speech last week on the Bill, astonished me by the arguments he adduced in favour of not holding a General Election in this country and in favour of holding one in Northern Ireland. His main argument against holding a General Election here was that, in war-time, minority

parties might easily be swept out of existence in the avalanche of the General Election, and why he should therefore assume that a General Election, if one were to be held in Northern Ireland, would be bound to redound to the advantage of the Opposition parties, I really cannot understand.

Mr. McGovern: At no time in my speech did I oppose the holding of a General Election in Great Britain. What I did say was that the people of this country were more behind the Government of this country than the people of Northern Ireland were behind their Government, and I said "hat because of that, if it was intended to hold an election in this country, certain preparations, which I enumerated, were essential for the holding of that election and that until those conditions could be met the holding of an election would be a farce.

Mr. Peake: The hon. Member says he did not speak against the holding of an election in this country. If he will look at the third paragraph of his speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will find that he said:
Are we to have a 'coupon election' in order that the Government may get rid of a few difficult Members in the House?" [OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th September, 1942; col. 842, Vol. 383.]
He went on to show very good reasons why we should not have an election to get rid of the hon. Member and the other Members of the Independent Labour Party. On that point I agree that it would be a pity if some of the more picturesque Members of this House were to be swept away in the course of a war-time election. The hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon), who has had much longer Parliamentary experience than I have, and who made an interesting speech, said that the question which we had to settle was whether it would be wise to have an election in Ulster early next year. I think even that is stating the point which the Committee has to settle rather too narrowly. What in effect we have to settle to-day is whether, having established a Parliament in Northern Ireland we should extend to that Parliament the same powers of prolonging its maximum duration as we have taken for ourselves over here already on three separate occasions. I cannot see the slightest argument in favour of our interfering with the internal


affairs of Northern Ireland and saying to them, "Although we are free to decide whether an election shall take place here or not, you in Northern Ireland must have an election, whether you like it or not in March next year." Having established the Parliament of Northern Ireland I

Division No. 24.]
AYES.



Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Oldfield, W. H.


Albery, Sir Irving
Hambro, A. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Amery, Bt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Ammon, C. G.
Harvey, T. E.
Peake, O.


Barnes, A. J.
Hayday, A.
Pearson, A.


Barr, J.
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Sir C. M.
Petherick, Major M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Peto, Major B. A. J.


Beattie, F.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Piokthorn, K. W. M


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Poole, Captain C. C.


Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'tsm'h)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Blair, Sir R.
Hewlett, T. H.
Procter, Major H. A.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Hicks, E. G.
Pym, L. R.


Boulton, W. W.
Hill, Prof. A. V.
Quibell, D. J. K


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Radford, E. A.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hopkinson, A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Burden, T. W.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Richards, R.


Burke, W. A.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Rickards, G. W.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Ridley, G.


Cape, T.
Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Ritson, J.


Cary, R. A.
Isaacs, G. A.
Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (Mitcham)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.
Ross Taylor, W.


Challen, Flight-Lieut. C.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Rowlands, G.


Charleton, H. C.
Jewson, P. W
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Christie, J. A.
John, W.
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Cluse, W. S.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Salt, E. W.


Cobb, Captain E. C.
Keeling, E. H.
Savory, Professor D. L.


Colegate, W. A.
Kendall, W. D.
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)


Collindridge, F.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h &amp; Selk'k)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's.)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir Stafford
Key, C. W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Kimball, Major L.
Snadden, W. McN.


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Kinby, B. V.
Somerset, T.


Culverwell, C. T.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lakin, C. H A.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Leslie, J. R.
Spens, W. P.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Liddall, W. S.
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. Oliver


Digby, Capt. K. S. D. W.
Lipson, D. L.
Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Loftus, P. C.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton (Northwich)


Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)
Mabane, W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Ede, J. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
McEntee, V. La T.
Summers, G. S.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McKie, J. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)
McKinlay, A. S.
Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. H. (Stockton)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Macnamara, Lt.-Col. J. R. J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Everard, Sir W. Lindsay
Mander, G. le M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Fildes, Sir H,
Martin, J. H.
Thomas, I. (Kaighley)


Foot, D. M.
Mathers, G.
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'mpton)


Foster, W.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Tinker, J. J.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Touche, G. C.


Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.
Messer, F.
Viant, S. P.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Milner, Major J.
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)


Gibbins, J.
Molson, A. H. E.
Walker, J.


Goldie, N. B.
Montague, F.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Waterhouse, Capt. C.


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Watkins, F. C.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mort, D. L.
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. H. (Richmond)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Mott-Radclyffe, Capt. C. E.
Wells, Sir S. Richard


Grigg, Rt. Hon. Sir P. J. (Cardiff, E.)
Muff, G.
Westwood, J.


Grimston, R. V.
Murray, J. D.
White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Naylor, T. E.
White, H. (Derby, N. E.)


Guy, W. H.
Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

think we are bound to extend to them the same liberty in this matter as we are taking upon ourselves.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 6.

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.



Wilkinson, Ellen
Woodburn, A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Mr. J. P. L. Thomas and


Windsor, W.
Woolley, W. E.
Mr. A. S. Young.


Winterlon, Rt. Hon. Earl
York, Capt. C.





NOES.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey, W.)
LLERS FOR THE NO ES.—


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Silverman, S. S.
Mr. McGovern and Mr. Stephen.


Maxton, J.
Stokes, R. R.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Dr. Russell Thomas: I regret to detain the House longer on this Bill. I do not think I would have attempted to do so if I had realised, as I should, how very harmonious Irish matters always are. I speak as one who among many have frequently been the subject of gibes both in this House and in the Press because we came here under a party truce. I myself came here only 1¾ years ago. I make no apologies for that and I do not think I have been altogether a rubber stamp member we have heard so much about. For many times, like the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Captain R. Churchill) I was borne stricken from many a blood-stained field because at one time I represented a lost cause. I ask Members to examine the records of their own elections in 1935, and many will find that they came to this House on a minority vote. In that respect, I do not believe that I could be regarded as exceptional in this Parliament, although that allegation is always made against people like myself. I think that there are several reasons why a General Election should not be held at the present time. People have constantly said that it would be impossible on the present Register. A great deal has been made of the fact that the Register is completely out of date, and that in many cases probably it does not represent 40 per cent. of the electorate. But people who have objected to an election on that Register have said that there is another way, and that an election could easily be held on a ration-card or an identity-card vote. Advocates of a General Election who have been here even a shorter time than I have, have said that this would be a simple matter. For several reasons, I do not think that that would be the case. I think they have for

gotten that they would have to determine the age of the voter. Many young people between 18 and 21 might claim the vote, and a considerable amount of machinery would have to be set up to determine whether those people were 21 or not. It is said that they would only have to bring a birth certificate but this would add considerably to the difficulties.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member is discussing something quite outside this Bill.

Dr. Thomas: I have given reasons why a General Election should not be held and why this Bill should pass the Third Reading.

Mr. Muff: I thought you were opposing it.

Dr. Thomas: My attitude, I think, is clear. If you rule me out of Order, Mr Deputy-Speaker, I shall have to give up my speech. The Government have asked that this Bill should pass through this Parliament, and unless it does there will be a General Election. I am trying to show the difficulties there would be if there was a General Election at the present time, and, therefore, why this Bill should pass through its Third Reading stage.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a very cogent argument on the Second Reading to justify the provisions of the. Bill.

Dr. Thomas: I am trying to justify its Third Reading, but I am sure the House has been detained long enough on the Bill, and I bow to your Ruling and will not proceed further with my speech.

Professor Savory: I am aware that on the Third Reading the subject of Debate is very much circumscribed, but I want to keep within your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as far as I possibly can. There are one or two points I should very much like to be allowed to make. The Home Secretary, in introducing the Bill on Second Reading, was very emphatic in


pointing out why it has been necessary to insert a second Clause relating to Ulster, because in the Act of 1920 it is laid down that there must be a General Election in Northern Ireland every five years. Therefore, when the question is asked whether the House of Commons and Senate and Governor of Northern Ireland had any power to prolong their own existence, the answer is, "No, they are bound by the Act of 1920, and there must be a General Election every five years." We have to come to this House of Commons and ask it to pass an over-riding Bill which will suspend temporarily the Act of 1920 and enable us to postpone having a General Election in the same way as you will postpone having a General Election for your House of Commons over here. You are to have your Parliament prolonged, and we are asking that our House of Commons in Northern Ireland will be able to do the same.
It is not often that I listen to the orators in Hyde Park, but two Sundays ago I heard a very eloquent oration. A gentleman got up and said that the Parliament in Northern Ireland was unrepresentative, because it had abolished proportional representation. If they were to have proportional representation at this moment, they would immediately abolish "Partition" and join with Eire. That argument has been taken up already by various speakers. Nationalist Members of the House of Commons and Senate have sent a petition to the Cabinet.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that the question of arguments which may be taken up by Nationalist Members and others do not come within the Third Reading of this Bill, which merely declares that the Northern Ireland Parliament shall be extended, and the hon. Member must stick to the Third Reading.

Professor Savory: Very well, I will take another opportunity of replying, but I think that the argument I am going to make now is strictly relevant, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Speaking from my own experience, as the representative of the graduates of Northern Ireland, that is the élite of Ulster, and as Ulster forms the élite of the United Kingdom, therefore my constituents are the very élite of the whole United Kingdom. A very large proportion of these have voluntarily joined His Majesty's Forces. You refused to apply

conscription to Northern Ireland in spite of the unanimous wish of Ulster Members here, and these gentlemen have volunteered.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is really going quite outside the scope of the Bill. He must not continue his speech on these lines.

Professor Savory: My point is that these graduates, having joined up, would not be able to take part in an election, and therefore, you have these men in the Middle and Far East, and many of them have shed their "blood for their country.

Dr. Thomas: On a point of Order. The hon. Member is now partly making my speech. May I therefore be allowed to go on with mine?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am doing my best to keep the hon. Member within bounds.

Professor Savory: The bounds are these.

Mr. McKie: Is it not for you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to decide what the bounds are?

Professor Savory: Were you to propose a General Election at the present moment, obviously it would give a false representation of the opinion of Northern Ireland. I am speaking of my own experience and of my own constituents who enlisted in their thousands. It is true that there has not been for many years a contested election in the university for representation at Westminster, but these graduates also have a vote for their county or the City of Belfast or wherever they happen to reside, and they would be prevented from exercising their franchise. Therefore—and I think I am within the bounds of the Third Reading—it is absolutely essential in the interests of fair play that these electors should record their votes and that you should not hold a General Election at the present time, but when they come back, have your election and let these noble electors, the very cream of the country, vote and elect their representatives to this House of Commons as well as to the House of Commons of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Muff: I rise to pronounce the benediction. It has been worth while to have this discussion if only to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for the Queen's University of Belfast


(Professor Savory). It shows that there is some value at any rate in university representation, though I have never believed very much in that before. I hope that the Debate will continue on a note of conciliation, because the vast majority of the Members of this House realise that it would be suicidal to have an election. What we have really decided is to give the right to Ulster to say whether it wants an election, and that is self-determination in its broadest aspect. I will not detain the House for another minute, except to say that I wish that these people could compose their differences in the same decent way that we people in Yorkshire do ours.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

LOCAL ELECTIONS AND REGISTER OF ELECTORS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Continuance of 2 & 3 Geo. 6. c. 115)

Mr. Lipson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out "December," and to insert "March."
My purpose in moving this Amendment is to draw attention to the matter of filling casual vacancies in local councils. This matter was discussed on the Second Reading, and attention was drawn to the fact that whereas casual vacancies for this House are filled by election, those for local councils are not. The object of this Amendment is to substitute the month of March for December, so as to give the Government time to consider whether a better method of filling vacancies should come into being in place of the existing method. At present local councils are closed corporations, and that is bad for——

Mr. Muff: On a point of Order. What Amendment is the hon. Member moving?

Mr. Lipson: The first Amendment. During the war we have surrendered a great many of our liberties in order that a greater liberty may be preserved, but it is the duty of Parliament to see that these berties are not unnecessarily suspended,

and I want to suggest that by accepting the suggestion to extend the period of this Bill to March instead of December and so enabling the Government to take appropriate measures to bring in another Bill——

The Deputy-Chairman: I think any discussion on temporary vacancies must be out of Order. We cannot discuss that on this Amendment or on the later Amendment, because, as the hon. Member no doubt understands, one cannot amend a Bill which is purely a continuation Bill I do not think one can allow any discussion on the question of casual vacancies.

Mr. Lipson: Do I understand from your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, that it would not be in Order to state the reasons why it is undesirable that this Bill should be extended beyond March?

The Deputy-Chairman: One cannot put in Order on the first Amendment what is out of Order on the second Amendment.

Mr. Mander: Surely it would be in Order to state the reasons why this Bill should be limited to the end of March instead of December?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment has stated the reason, namely, that he wants the Government to reconsider the question of casual vacancies. One cannot go further than that.

Mr. Lipson: Is it your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown that I cannot state in detail what I want the Government to reconsider and why I think it is desirable that they should reconsider this matter?

The Deputy-Chairman: That would be going into the second Amendment, which would be completely out of Order. The hon. Member has said why he wants to insert "March" instead of "December," but he may not expand that argument into the second Amendment. Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw his Amendment?

Mr. Lipson: No, Colonel Clifton Brown. Although it is not possible to extend further the argument which was developed on the Second Reading, I hope the Home Secretary will give sympathetic consideration to the argument that it is desirable


that this Bill should be extended only to March in order that the whole question may be given more consideration by the Government than it has received up to the present. The impression generally is that in their original intention the Government did not envisage the war going on so long or that the consequences would be so serious. When they propose to extend the present procedure for another year, I hope they will be willing to give further consideration to this matter. Although they are perhaps not able to give a definite pledge now, I ask that on a further occasion when they extend this Bill this question should receive the Government's sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Mander: I appreciate your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, that one cannot go into the specific manner in which one wants this Bill altered, when it comes to an end, and we therefore have to make it plain that we object to its remaining in operation as it is now. There was never any real necessity for this Bill at all. No doubt there are certain areas such as bombed areas where grave difficulties might arise, but in those cases it would be reasonable for the Government to take powers to exclude by Order——

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is advancing arguments against the Bill as a whole. This question was settled on the Second Reading, and we cannot go back on that.

Mr. Mander: If you rule that way, Colonel Clifton Brown, then I cannot elaborate that point any further, but I want to say this: I feel sure that the Home Secretary will be influenced in this matter by the volume of Parliamentary opinion on the subject. If he finds that a large number of Members, belonging to all parties, hold strongly that some effort should be made to alter the system we have been working on up to the present time, I feel sure that he, as a good democrat, will bow to such opinion and will consider between now and when the Bill comes forward again the possibility of introducing Amendments. During the last two years my voice has been almost a lone voice in opposing this Measure. But it is so no longer. A considerable volume of opinion has been expressed on the lines of what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) and I have said to-day.

It was so, for instance, on the Second Reading, and I have reason to believe that others are prepared to take the same view. I do not expect my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, because two or three people express their views strongly on this subject, to take any very serious steps, but if he finds that a representative body of Members in all parts of the House do so, I believe it would be his desire to look into the matter in a much more serious way than has been done up to now. I am precluded from using some of the arguments put forward on the Second Reading, but I am sure he will bear them in mind—he knows them well—and will take them as said although they have not actually been said on this occasion.

Mr. Muff: I wish to support the Amendment, but I do so for different reasons from those stated by the hon. Members who moved and seconded it. I support it because I have contested six municipal elections in November. Whenever there may be municipal elections—I hope it may be in 1943—I trust that, considering the amount of illness caused by having elections in November, the elections will not be fixed either for December or the old evil day of 1st November. I intervene simply to suggest that when alterations are being made in the election law in the dates of elections, consideration should be given to the question of whether, just as the month of March is stipulated for county council and similar elections, common sense should not intervene and reign supreme and March be fixed for the holding of municipal elections.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Within the limits of your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, clearly it would not be in Order to refer to the arguments which a number of us would have liked to put before the Committee. I hope the Home Secretary will consider sympathetically the suggestions that have been made and that, if he is not able to accept the Amendment, he will at any rate indicate that the Government will give consideration to some alternative methods of dealing with this matter. If the Bill is passed in its present form, without the Amendment, it will mean that the whole machinery of local democratic Government will continue in suspense. That is something which was perfectly justifiable for one year or even for two


years, but it cannot be justified as a continuous process going on year after year. If the Amendment is not accepted, it will mean that interest in local affairs will tend to die out among a large section of the electorate and a small group of people will have complete control and will be able to co-opt members of local government bodies without any consultation with the wider body of electors. That is not good for the continuance of democracy. It is not a party matter, because in many parts of the country, particularly in the smaller localities, party considerations do not enter into the election of the local authorities". It is very important that the electors should continue to be interested and should have an opportunity of expressing their interest. If the machinery of election is in suspense for a long period, this will have a deleterious effect on the whole life of the community. Therefore, I hope the Home Secretary will consider seriously the plea that has been made to him.

Colonel Arthur Evans: I hope my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will accept the Amendment, because if he does not do so, I feel that it will be tantamount to endorsing a policy of official recognition by the Government of the day of party caucuses throughout the country. That would be a bad thing. We know that in the United States of America, under their Electoral Law, there are elections known as "Primaries" which are officially recognised by the Constitution.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member is pursuing the matter too far.

Colonel Evans: I will not pursue that point further, Colonel Clifton Brown, but will content myself with submitting to you, within your Ruling, that it would be unfortunate if a large section of the people were not concerned at all, when vacancies of this kind arise, for so long a period. In some constituencies a small number of people, perhaps four or five, meeting in a private" house, decide among themselves—probably having been given a name by the town clerk of the district concerned—who shall be the nominee in a certain ward.

The Deputy-Chairman: The matter to which the hon. and gallant Member is now referring is outside the Amend-

ment, which is to substitute "March" for "December."

Colonel Evans: May I submit to you, Colonel Clifton Brown, that it is a reasonable argument to address to the Committee to say that this practice should not be allowed to continue for such a long period of time? It is for that reason that I feel that the date should be altered. I hope the Home Secretary, when he replies, will, if it is possible to do so within your Ruling, deal with the very substantial arguments that have been made in the Debate.

Mr. Messer: I realise that I am entirely lacking in the necessary skill to give the Committee, within the terms of your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, the reasons I support the Amendment. It must be clear, however, that there is a feeling of disquiet in the country about this matter. At the present time the associations of local government bodies are considering the form of postwar local government, and it is true to say that in almost every case there is emphasis upon the necessity for the maintenance of the democratic system. The County Councils Association, which is a very important body, is considering the question of post-war local government, and as the discussion takes place, it is clear that the desire is that we should not depart to any extent from the democratic principle. During the war we are departing from it. We cannot help doing so. We cannot run the war by committees. I want to express the view that the present method of appointing local government members cannot be considered as truly reflecting the mind of the people. There are certain aspects of the case which ought to be considered. The Home Secretary will know of some instances where the agreement upon which the original Act was based has not been kept. When the original Act was passed, there was agreement in the House that parties would be entitled to co-opt their members and that if a member of a party died or resigned, that party would be able to nominate a successor. That agreement has not been faithfully kept.

The Deputy-Chairman: What the hon. Member is saying would have been in Order in the Second Reading Debate, but it is not in Order in Committee.

Mr. Messer: I realise that, Colonel Clifton Brown, but I have come to the end of what I wanted to say, and I think that honestly there is in it substance for consideration.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend may consider inserting March instead of December, because I can apprehend certain issues arising which will almost compel him to reconsider his position. After March, of course, a great deal can happen. I am not entitled to give reasons why it should be so, but I can assure him that the arrangements which have been made for the purpose of working this Measure are not being carried out faithfully.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Hon. Members have been so reasonable and friendly in their observations that I find it difficult not to surrender completely forthwith. I am in some difficulty in replying, because I also must mind my step and not in any way conflict with the Ruling that you, Colonel Clifton Brown, have given. I am in the position that I know almost exactly the arguments which the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and others would have put up if they had been able, and I know the full, complete and devastating answer to all those arguments, which I think the Committee would accept as conclusive. Nevertheless, we are dealing with a Bill which is to renew an Act of Parliament, and we cannot get to the point of amending the Act itself. I cannot get into the field of argument which hon. Members would have put before the Committee had it been possible, but I assure them there there are very strong arguments the other way, which I am sure they would have taken serious notice of.
It is the case that Parliament dealt with itself differently from the way it dealt with local authorities. In the original Act we decided that no local elections should be held, and that was quite conclusive, whereas Parliament was prolonged for a year, without, of course, any prejudice to the right of the Prime Minister to advise His Majesty to dissolve Parliament, and therefore neither a General Election nor a by-election was prohibited in the case of Parliament. But, wisely or unwisely, Parliament dealt differently with local authorities and

prescribed that there should be no election of any sort while the Act was in force. I think it would be inconvenient to accept an Amendment to limit the duration of the Bill to six months. If Parliament is legislating at all it ought not really in other than very exceptional circumstances to legislate for less than 12 months, which is a convenient temporary period; I do not think it would be reasonable to cut that down by half, but, in considering the Bill next year, assuming that I am still at the Home Office, I will instruct my officers that the attention of the Home Secretary shall be drawn to the arguments which have been put forward in the House and elsewhere as to any perfections or imperfections in this legislation.

Major Randolph Churchill: On a point of Order. May I ask if it is in keeping with the austerity policy of the Committee for the Lord Privy Seal to wear an overcoat on the Front Bench?

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman can wear what he likes on the front or any other bench.

Mr. Morrison: I will give instructions that, when the Bill is being prepared next year, all the points that have been raised shall be put before the Home Secretary. I do not wish to deceive the Committee by leading them to think it probable that the kind of alteration which some Members have in mind is likely to commend itself to the Home Secretary, because there are very strong arguments the other way, and I should think it is about 100 to 1 against any alterations being made. Nevertheless, certain points have been brought to my attention, both in the House and in Committee and privately by the hon. Members for Cheltenham and East Wolverhampton, and I will see that they are given consideration so that they can be weighed up.

Sir Percy Harris: Of course, there is nothing magic in choosing the month of December, but actually in practice it means that there will not be an election till 1944, because the practice is to have local elections in November, It would be more appropriate to select some other month, so that if, by good luck, we should have a victory next summer, we should have our elections in November, 1943.

Mr. Morrison: There are intelligent reasons for November. The range of local elections is that county council elections are held in March, urban and rural district councils in April, county and Metropolitan boroughs in November—that date also applies to Scotland—and December is the month for Scottish county council elections. If we are going to get a clear-cut date which does not affect any particular class of election unfairly we are really bound to take December.

Amendment negatived.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. McKinlay: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton-Brown): I am afraid the hon. Member is too late. The voices have been collected.

Mr. McKinlay: You, Sir, were looking the other way. I am not responsible for that. I must enter a protest. I was on my feet immediately you rose.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I had collected the voices.

INDIA AND BURMA (TEMPORARY AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIO BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.,

CLAUSE 2.—(Appeals to Privy Council from emergency courts.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I wonder whether the Secretary of State could make a little clearer the effect of this Clause. We all feel regret that there should be at least the appearance of a withdrawal of a right which might be of immense importance to the individuals concerned. I am sure that my right hon. Friend desires to see that the review which will be held in all

cases where the capital sentence is inflicted under the Emergency Provisions should be considerate and impartial. Is there no way in which there could be a similar method of appeal in India to that of asking for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. If such provision were made there would not be a long delay but there would be a guarantee of the same rights of leave; to appeal as apply in other cases.

The Secretary of State for India and Burma (Mr. Amery): Under this Clause the special emergency courts set up in areas of special danger are empowered to pass the death sentence for certain offences as they are under the war zone courts legislation that was passed here some time ago—such as sabotage, looting and other offences that would require to be dealt with immediately. Any sentence of death imposed by one of these courts will be subject to review by a special tribunal which must include a judge of the High Court.

Mr. Harvey: Will that allow representation by counsel of the person concerned?

Mr. Amery: I imagine so, yes. It does not exclude any petition on grounds of mercy or compassion in the individual case. That will go to the Viceroy as it always has done. What it does exclude is a practice which has grown up in certain parts of India over a number of years of putting in an application for special leave from the Privy Council to make an appeal. Of some 570 applications which have been made during the last six years only five were allowed, and in the case of only two of these did the Privy Council find that there was a case for an appeal and granted it. The thing has become even in the ordinary course of law in India something in the nature of a scandal. We did not think it right at a time like this to attempt to introduce changes in the ordinary law. On the other hand, in the case of serious disturbance with the enemy actually in the immediate neighbourhood it was thought to be very undesirable that sentences of death, imposed largely for their deterrent character, should have to wait for three or four months for their certain confirmation. The present Clause is provided to deal only with an emergency situation.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of s. 298 of Government of India Act, 1935.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Harvey: We ought to express our thankfulness that at such a time the Government of India and the Secretary of State have made this provision for a class of people who cannot help themselves, protecting them from the power of the usurer and the ensuing alienation of their land, which has long been a curse in many parts of India among the poorest sections of the population. It is notable that at such a time the Government should in this way have taken care of the most helpless part of the community.

Mr. Amery: I entirely agree with the hon. Member's comment. Some of the aboriginal tribes as well as the peasants of provinces like the Punjab require to be protected against the money-lender. A recent decision in the courts indicated that the drafting of the original Clause in this connection was a little too narrow, and so for "mortgage or sale" the word "dispositions" has been substituted, and similarly the words "agricultural, land" have been redefined in conection with legislation which covers, for instance, the sites of farm buildings and water rights. It is true, as the hon. Member pointed out, that in this matter we are protecting many of the most helpless elements in the Indian community, but I would also point out that we are incidentally protecting, in the Punjab at any rate, those classes of peasants, both Moslem and Hindu, who provide between them very nearly half the Indian Army, and who would certainly be very much disturbed if they felt that the rights which they have hitherto enjoyed had in any manner been put in question.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 5, 6 and. 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to—

(1) the Urban District of Chislehurst and Sidcup;
(2) the Rural District of Dunmow; and
(3) the Seaton Delaval North, Seaton Delaval South, Seghill, Backworth and Shire-moor Wards of the Urban District of Seaton Valley

copies of which were presented to this House on 7th October, be approved."—[Mr. Peake.]

The remaining Orders were read and postponed:

BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Mr. G. Strauss: I want to raise upon this Motion for the Adjournment the question of the report recently issued by the Bank for International Settlements and our present relationship with that body. A number of Members, including myself, asked some Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 1st October, and the Chancellor gave a full and frank answer. As far as that answer went it was reassuring. It was at least satisfactory to know that our directors and representatives on the Bank for International Settlements have not had any contact or negotiations with the German directors on that body. But there were quite a number of points which it was quite impossible to deal with by Questions and answers, and I raise the matter to-day so that many fears and suspicions which are in our minds about the Bank may be dealt with when there is more time and when the Chancellor will have ample opportunity to give a fuller answer to the Questions we wish to put to him.
We frankly have suspicions about the Bank for International Settlements, because of the history of the Bank in the past and in particular in view of the behaviour of that Bank at the time when the German army occupied Prague. The Bank was then instrumental in handing over to Germany £6,000,000 of Czech gold, which it had deposited with the Bank of England


in this country. The House will remember the very strong protests that were made from all quarters on that occasion. The House will probably also remember that it was only possible to drag the truth about these proceedings from the Government at that time with very great difficulty. Every effort seemed to be made to hide that transaction from us. Therefore I- suggest that it is an obligation on the House to-day to consider very carefully the recent activities of the Bank for International Settlements, and to consider whether in present circumstances we are wise to remain associated with that organisation.
The history of the annual report recently issued by the Bank is rather peculiar. Apparently this report, a very long document running into over 200 pages, was first presented to a general meeting of shareholders—I do not know of whom they consisted—on 8th June of this year, by the President of the Bank, an American named Mr. McKittrick. On 4th September, there was a Press conference in Basle, where the Bank is situated, and the contents of the report were given to the Press. On 5th September, the German Press reported some extracts from this report, obviously with great glee, because the extracts presumably confirmed many of the desires of the German Government. Anyhow, we can be certain that the Press would not have given such prominence to this report of the Banks for International Settlements unless it had been favourable in German eyes.
On 17th September some of the German papers arrived in this country, and the reports appearing in those papers were copied by some of the financial journals here. Considerable public interest was aroused, but it was not until 1st October that the matter was raised here in Parliament. We were then assured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that nobody in this country was in possession of this report and that neither the Treasury nor the Bank of England knew anything about it. Afterwards, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to say that there had been a mistake and that actually the Ministry of Economic Warfare had a copy. Up to that time, 1st October, the Bank of England, which is closely associated with the Bank for International Settlements, had apparently no knowledge of this very important report, and, as far as

we know, had taken no steps to obtain a copy. The House will be aware that on the directorate of the Bank for International Settlements sit Mr. Montagu Norman and Sir Otto Niemeyer, although these gentlemen, we are told, have not recently taken any part in the activities of the Bank.
The first question one would like to ask is how it is that, after all that period, and a fortnight after the Press had carried at some length extracts from the report, the Bank of England had, on 1st October, apparently no knowledge at all of the report. One would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Bank had taken any steps to obtain the report or to make any investigations to see what was being said in the name of the Bank for International Settlements, and, presumably, in the name of the directors of that Bank. If the answer is that the Bank of England took no steps, were not interested, in the report of the Bank for International Settlements, I suggest that it is an example of public irresponsibility which is positively staggering. But our real concern in this matter is this: This survey—and the report is very largely a survey of international affairs—has been issued by an organisation on which this country is represented by very distinguished bankers but which, in fact, is under the control of the Nazis That is obviously a very dangerous and even serious situation.
The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) the other day, said that the Bank for International Settlements was only under the control of Germany to the extent of 50 per cent. I cannot understand where he got that figure, because to-day he answered a Question put to him by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and gave the names of all the central banks for various European countries who own the shares, and the number of shares owned by each bank. It is perfectly clear from that answer to-day that over 70 per cent. of the shares under the control of the central banks are in the possession of the Germans, either directly or indirectly, because these banks have come under the domination of Germany during the last two years. So this bank is quite definitely under the control of the German Government.
Moreover, I suggest to Members that they should look for a moment at the directorship of the bank. There are 16 directors; two of them are neutral, two of them are British, and 12 of them are either German, or represent countries under German domination. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that this report has been drawn up by the president of the bank, Mr. McKittrick. I would be the last person to suggest that Mr. McKittrick is in any way biassed or that his integrity is not absolute, but I suggest that a report of such great length and complexity could not be drawn up by one man. The president of the bank may well be the sole person who takes responsibility in the matter, but in point of fact it must have been prepared by many other people in the bank. In view of the fact that some of the contents have been welcomed so very much as useful propaganda by the German Government, one has a right to wonder whether the manager of the bank, a German, Herr Hechler, did not take a prominent part, at any rate, in drawing up some parts of that report.
There are two parts of that report which have been pounced upon by the Germans to help them in Germany m their propaganda, and which have been quoted at very great length in their papers, and which I submit to the House are so objectionable that they provide very strong reasons for us to dissociate ourselves entirely, not only from the report, but from the Bank which produced it, and which may produce more, and even more unhelpful reports in the future. The first item pounced upon by the German Press for publication was that dealing with interest rates. The German Government have boasted that they have been able to reduce interest rates in their country. Recently they have been forced to increase them, because they found very great difficulty in getting the public to lend the Government money. They have been forced to increase their interest rates, and it has been very awkward. They have had great difficulty in explaining this necessity. It is therefore natural that they are quite delighted when the Bank for International Settlements comes along with a report which puts forward theoretical justification for the raising of interest rates, based on facts which, I submit, are quite untrue. The report of the Bank for

International Settlements suggested, on pages 15 and 16, that there is a worldwide movement for increasing interest rates in almost every country. I am sure that that is not true; but, naturally, the German Press hit on this, and carry this story as a justification for the increase of interest rates in Germany.
The second thing is even more serious. The report lays down principles for a post-war economic system. The House will agree that it is very dangerous for a body with which we are nominally associated—and, in the eyes of the world, rather closely associated—to issue a report laying down post-war schemes of reconstruction. The Bank for International Settlements is known throughout the world for, not only very close Nazi associations, but its Nazi domination. We have our directors still on the board, and that bank produces in its annual report proposals for setting up the economic basis of a new Europe after the war. That, I think, is very serious. It suggests to the German people that there is some form of collaboration between the Nazis and the Allies whom they are supposed to be fighting. It may give them hope of a peace arrangement between some elements in this country and in Germany. The facts can be easily distorted by the German propaganda machine so as to make the people of Germany believe that somewhere in this country appeasement still lives—if not in this country generally, in banking circles. Even more harmful might be the effect on public opinion in the rest of the world, if people see this body issuing such proposals and no action taken by the British Government. I hope that there will be some action by the Government to dissociate themselves completely and effectively from this body, seeing that the report and the action taken by the Bank must be quite out of accord with the general attitude of the peoples of the United Nations, who are determined to fight the enemy and not to associate with the enemy in any possible way, least of all in drawing up at the present stage of the war even the outline of a scheme for economic agreement after the war.
I think that something more than a public disclaimer is necessary. That disclaimer has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that we were not responsible for the report, and that it had been issued solely on the responsibility of the American President of the


Bank. A far more convincing gesture is necessary to show our emphatic disapproval, not only of the document, but of the Bank for International Settlements in producing the document in this way. I do not know what good grounds we can have for associating any longer with the Bank for International Settlements. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day that there were good national reasons. What in the world are those good national reasons? Have we got large moneys invested with the Bank, and are we likely to lose them if we dissociate ourselves from it? The Chancellor answered that question to-day, when he said that the British Government have deposited with the Bank 26,500,000 reichsmarks, which is a little over £2,000,000, and that no interest, is paid on that amount. If that money is to-day in the hands of the Axis nations, whether we dissociate ourselves with the Bank or not it will remain in the hands of the Axis nations, and nothing will bring it back to us.
If that money is not in the hands of the Axis nations, why should we not dissociate ourselves from the Bank? The money is presumably still in our hands. Unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to give us something more concrete than he has in the past, there does not appear to be any financial reason why we should remain associated with the Bank for International Settlements. If our object is merely to get reports from the Bank of what is happening, we can leave our interests very well in the hands, as I suggested the other day, of the Swiss banks. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is able to suggest some justifiable reason, which he has not been able to do up to now, why we should maintain directors on the Bank and why we should have people on the managerial staff of the Bank, the proper thing to do is to dissociate ourselves from the Bank as quickly as possible. We get the worst of both worlds. We are associating with the Bank in the public mind but apparently are not responsible for any of its actions or of the actions of the President of the Bank. What a ridiculous position.
The difficulties that exist to-day may become worse. There may be other reports issued by the Bank. We do not know what it is going to do in the future. We have Montagu Norman and Otto Niemeyer on the Bank nominally as

directors but apparently not responsible for anything. The only satisfactory conclusion of this problem is a clean break with the Bank, and I very much hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will to-day tell us that he is going to do that or will give very good reasons why not. If we made such a break, it would provide irrefutable evidence to the world of our attitude to the report which has been issued, and no one could possibly accuse us of talking behind anybody's back to the Germans. Moreover, if we had this break with the Bank and dissociated ourselves entirely from it, I am sure that such an action would be popular in this country with the memory of the Czech-gold affair and the shameful manner in which the Bank for International Settlements at that time acted as Hitler's agent to get Czech gold from London back to Germany. I am certain that if we dissociated ourselves completely from the Bank, it would meet with the whole-hearted support of the people of this country.

Mr. Hutchinson: The House has listened with great interest to my hon. Friend's criticism of the Bank for International Settlements, but I cannot help feeling that much of the criticism which he has directed against that institution really arises not so much from his objections to what the Bank is doing to-day, but rather from the suspicions which its conduct has aroused in his mind in the past.

Mr. G. Strauss: Both.

Mr. Hutchinson: My hon. Friend says that it was the history of the Bank that had aroused his suspicions, but when one looks into the history of the Bank, it is quite clear that its original parenthood, at any rate, was unimpeachable. It came into existence as the child of most respectable parents. It was one of the instruments for facilitating international transfer under the Young plan, which, the House will recollect, enjoyed the approbation of the late Mr. Philip Snowden and the Labour Government of that time. So that if it fell away from the paths of righteousness, the falling away took place at a later stage in its history. My hon. Friend's argument really proceeds upon the publication of the last report of the Bank. It is not so much anything which the Bank has done or failed to do to which he objects; it is to certain passages which have found their way into the Bank's


annual report and which have apparently aroused certain approbation among newspaper men in enemy countries. My hon. Friend says that having regard to the history of this institution and to the fact that it has now seen fit to put into its report something which has excited the praise of enemy journalists, we ought forthwith to withdraw from it and have no more to do with it.
If my hon. Friend had been able to come to the House and point to something which this institution had done which was of an unneutral character, or which was directly or indirectly prejudicial to any British or pro-Allied interest, I think we should all have known very well what to do. But my hon. Friend's argument does not go anything like so far as that. I have no doubt he has made most exhaustive inquiries into the recent activities of the Bank for International Settlements. If there had been anything unsavoury in what the Bank has been doing, no doubt he would have been able to come to the House and tell us all about it in the greatest possible detail. But one of the most significant things about his speech is that the only criticism he has been able to direct against the Bank is based solely upon two passages in its annual report.
That report, I understand, was the work of its American chairman. Before we take the drastic step of withdrawing altogether from this Bank, which, at the outset, was such a useful and innocuous institution, the House will require some rather stronger case for doing so than my hon. Friend has been able to put forward. I can see no reason why we should withdraw our representatives from the Bank for International Settlements, but I can see several good reasons why they should remain there.
The first reason is this: My hon. Friend, as he says, is very suspicious of the Bank. He says, "Here is an institution which is capable of mischief." That may be perfectly true, although he has not been able to point out any particular act of mischief of which the Bank has been guilty. He says," Here is something that may be used to our prejudice." If that is the case while the composition of the Board of Directors of the Bank is as it is at present, how much more would it be the case if we withdrew our representatives and left this institution entirely

in the hands of our enemies. Surely, that would mean that we should be simply running away from it and, for what it is worth, handing it over to those who would undoubtedly use it for the purposes of the Axis countries.

Mr. Loftus: My hon. Friend assumes in his argument that the two British directors are a check on the actions of the Bank, and therefore, they are participating in its proceedings.

Mr. Hutchinson: I am not assuming that they have taken part in the transactions of the Bank. What I am suggesting is that their presence on the Board is a restraining influence on the other members of the Board, whether they actually take part in the business of the Bank or not. Suppose that we withdraw our representatives, are we going to leave the American President of the Bank alone, surrounded by the representatives of the Axis countries? My hon. Friend was not able to tell us what is the position of the United States Government in the matter. I assume that the President of the Bank is not a representative of the United States Government, but we do not know whether they are willing, and, indeed, we do not know whether they are able, to withdraw him from his present position. Until we know a little more about that, I suggest that it would be very unwise for us to withdraw our representatives, even if they are only sleeping partners, and leave the American President of the Bank alone surrounded by the representatives of enemy countries and countries which are at present controlled by the enemy. This Bank for International Settlements was, at its birth, a highly respectable and highly useful international institution.

Mr. MacLaren: No bank can be.

Mr. Hutchinson: The hon. Member says that no bank can be. As I listened to the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss), I felt that if this institution had been called by some other name and had not been called a bank, it might have been less likely to arouse the suspicions of some of my hon. Friends. At any rate, this Bank started its life as a very useful instrument for international transactions. Some of us hope that the time will come when its usefulness will return, and when that time comes it will, I think, be a great advantage that we should have an institution of that sort, available for all those


transactions which we may require it to carry out when the war is over. It would be a pity now if we were to do something which would destroy altogether the international character which it still possesses by reason of the fact that our representatives, in name at least, are still members of the Board. We should do much better to allow this particular sleeping dog to continue in his present harmless slumbers, in the hope that at some future time he may be aroused again to a useful period of wakefulness.

Mr. Mander: I always regard with reluctance any proposal to do away with an existing international organisation. I quite agree as to the highly respectable parentage of this body, but even criminals in the early years of their lives are often very estimable persons, and the more one looks into the history of this organisation the more doubtful one becomes whether it is wise for us to remain associated with it. It seems to me that the Bank for International Settlements does not realise that there is a war on. They are acting as if things were exactly as they were in pre-war days. The chairman is the national of a country at war with Germany, and the manager is a German. They are nationals at war with each other, but they are sitting there day after day co-operating in the management of the Bank. It is a nauseating spectacle to my mind. There are British representatives, but the attitude of those who defend the Bank is that they take no part whatever in it. They are doing no harm and they have no influence; they are wholly detached. But my hon. and learned Friend has told me quite a different story. He says the prestige and distinction of the British representatives are so great that though they are in this country and are not in contact with the Bank, they put the fear of God into the President and those who are operating it from day to day. It is clear, therefore, that they are playing their part and certainly exercising influence of some kind.

Mr. Hutchinson: My argument was that they may have a restraining influence on the other members, and I pointed that out in conjunction with the fact that the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) has not been able to point to any unneutral act that the Bank has committed so far.

Mr. Mander: I may have put it in more picturesque and stronger language, but it is really the same thing. The hon. Member cannot see anything that the Bank has done wrong, but surely the mere fact that you have a United States citizen, our ally, sitting and working alongside a German is quite enough to do a great deal of harm to the Allied cause throughout the world and to arouse the suspicion that we cannot be terribly serious about certain aspects of the war if we permit a thing of that kind to go on. I understand that there are also two British subjects on the staff working with a German manager, and taking his orders. It seems to me a sorry spectacle.

Sir Patrick Harmon: Is there any evidence produced in the course of the report that he was in consultation with any of the other directors of the Bank?

Mr. Mander: The idea, of course, is that it is the American President of the Bank who is doing all the work of the Bank entirely on his own responsibility, but we have been told that in some sort of indefinable way the British directors are in the background exercising a certain amount of influence, and, if they do, we may be quite sure that the German directors, whether they are there physically or not, are also exercising a certain amount of influence, particularly on the German manager.
I do not think it can possibly be said that the different national interests, British and German, are wholly detached from the operations of the Bank. I should have thought it was desirable for the American President to resign and make way for some neutral who could be generally trusted to take an objective view and not allow the Bank to come out with proposals with regard to the post-war world. A person cannot be on a board and say he will not go to meetings and have nothing to do with it. We cannot escape responsibility of some kind nor can the Germans, and I should have thought that in the circumstances it would have been much wiser for the British and American representatives to have come out.
What is the reason for desiring to remain in? My hon. Friend was not far from the truth when he suggested that it was because we had a certain amount of


money invested in the Bank, and the Chancellor is naturally interested in finance wherever he can see it, even in the most exceptional places. After all, when we win the war we can do what we like with Europe, with the Bank or anybody else. We can dictate our own terms. It is a mere illusion, and a banker's illusion, to imagine that by associating with this Bank we are protecting our financial interests in any way. My right hon. Friend should look further into this difficulty and see whether he feels that at this stage we should remain in any way associated with a body which presents a united front among enemies and allies, working together in the financial sphere and putting forward some scheme for the post-war world. It seems to be all wrong and I hope we shall put an end to it.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson,: The hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) based a good deal of his fears and suspicions about the Bank for International Settlements upon what he described as this very important report. If, by any chance, that report was not particularly important in the relevant sense of the word, a good deal of his case would fall to the ground. I think that one of the strongest currents of feeling which has prompted this discussion is that general feeling of suspicion about anything that carries the name of bank. It has often been a source of wonderment to me that those who become most excited when banks are mentioned are generally those who in the natural course of their lives have had least occasion to have practical connection with banking. It do not think that this Debate about the Bank for International Settlements, as evidenced by the speeches we have heard from the other side, has been any exception to that general rule. Members of Parliament are not unique in this respect. Even the most spiritually-minded persons exhibit the same symptoms as we may observe from orations we have recently heard at places as far apart as Bradford and the Albert Hall. In passing, may I say that I did happen to notice in the newspapers that the ceiling of the Albert Hall was giving way? I do not know whether it is possible that some of the things said there the other afternoon proved too much for the structure of that solid Victorian building.

Mr. McKinlay: It is the first time the Lord has been inside the place—that is why.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: As my hon. and learned Friend and namesake the Member for Ilford (Mr. G. Hutchinson), for whose excellent speeches I so often get the credit, has said, we have to consider this matter objectively, and there appear to be two points at issue. One is the assets, the money interest that we or our nationals have at stake in this Bank, both our stock interest and our deposits. Will those interests be benefited by our getting off the Board of the Bank, or will they be harmed? I should have thought that in so far as our interests can be protected by having British representatives there, we should be better off if we keep representatives there. But if we do not, what is proposed? Is it suggested that we should hand our representation over to the American chairman, and ask him to look after those assets for us? If so, I should imagine that he would say, "Thank you for nothing." And we cannot, after all, in any way control the decisions which our American friends may take with regard to this Bank.
The second point is the question of whether the Bank for International Settlements is likely to be a useful instrument in post-war times. Certainly, even with the most uninformed minds, one would think it is likely to be, but it is rather a technical matter, and I should think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, naturally, be guided by expert opinion thereon. I should imagine he would naturally consult the Governor of the Bank of England, and possibly people in the Treasury like Lord Keynes and Lord Catto, who really do know something about this subject. I hear some signs of dissent, and I have no doubt, for instance, that the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) would desire the Chancellor to consult His Grace the Duke of Bedford and Major Douglas.

Mr. Loftus: Can the hon. Member quote any speech or any statement I have ever made in my life advocating the policy of Social Credit? I challenge him to do so. I challenge him also to withdraw his statement if he is not able to give the quotation.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: I have in mind a number of cases where the hon. Member has advocated the doctrines which are set forth by a body called the Economic Reform Club, which I think is largely associated in most people's minds with the principle of Social Credit.

Mr. Loftus: The Economic Reform Club advocates no specific remedy of any kind, and its lists of vice-presidents and supporters include all classes of economists. I again ask the hon. Member to substantiate his charge or to do the usual thing and withdraw it.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: I think that matter will have to settle itself by reference to the OFFICIAL REPORT. To sum up this whole matter, it appears to be rather in the nature of a storm in a tea cup. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will so regard it, will dismiss it quickly from his mind, and charge his mind with the very much more important matters which we have asked him to undertake in connection with the winning of the war.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I think in justice to the President of the Bank for International Settlements that a statement which is embodied in the very opening of its report ought to be made known to the House. The President there says:
In its activities the Bank has always adhered to the spirit of scrupulous neutrality which it laid down for itself in the autumn of 1939, avoiding all transactions whereby any question can possibly arise of conferring economic and financial advantages on a belligerent nation to the detriment of another.
In fairness to the author of the report, who, as far as one can gather from the context, prepared the report entirely on his own authority, that qualification ought to be brought to the notice of the House. It is said that the post-war policy suggested in the report is not favourable to the interests of this country.
One of the dominant considerations for this country at the close of the conflict will be the adjustment of our international trade. This report is very exhaustive in many respects and is very educational to those who have gone over the graphs which have been prepared and over the figures, which have been brought up to the end of March of the present year. It will be a distinct advantage to this country if we retain our membership of the Bank for

International Settlements. The small part taken by the Bank of England at the present time in the activities of that organisation is of no consequence, but after the war it will be most important that this country should be represented upon it.

Mr. Bellenger: I always feel when I take part in Debates on high finance that I am somewhat at a disadvantage. We have had the wisdom of the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson) who seems to be an authority on these matters and who, indeed, occasionally works overtime on Sundays in giving the readers of "The Times" his views. We represent the British taxpayers and I have an idea that the taxpayers have some interest in the Bank for International Settlements. Therefore, we may be forgiven if we take a certain amount of interest in the subject, although it may not be the most enlightened interest. Is that our fault? I do not think so. Here we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the representative of the taxpayers of this country. Yet on occasions when we have tried to obtain some enlightenment from him in this House, he has affected to know nothing whatever about the doings of the Bank for International Settlements. When we questioned him recently about the report of the Bank for International Settlements he said he knew nothing about it. Now we know that the report was all the time in the hands of the Ministry of Economic Warfare. Whatever be the upshot of this Debate, perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow us to suggest he might co-operate a little with other Departments of the Government before he comes to this House to deny all knowledge of these subjects. He should consult other Government Departments, in which case he might be able to give us a little more information.
What is the report which we are discussing? I regret to say that we know very little about it. Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows nothing about it. Perhaps he may have got some enlightenment since he has been consulting with some other Government Departments. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is in the Library."] If we want to know anything about the report we must turn to the German newspapers, and in particular to the "Frankfurter Zeitung," which hon. Members will know is a very well-informed


German newspaper. Long before this matter was discussed in this country this paper with all the disadvantages of the censorship that prevails, had very extensive reports and summaries of this report. I suggest that we are entitled to know something more about what is going on in the Bank for International Settlements, for this reason: We are substantial shareholders of the Bank for International Settlements. I have very little to do with limited companies, public or private, but I had always understood that shareholders were at any rate entitled to know something from the directors as to their operations in the shareholders' interests. It seems to me we know nothing, or very little, about what the Bank for International Settlements is doing.
I agree that when the Bank was originally set up it had a useful function. In effect, it was an international clearing bank, and obviously as we were taking part in international trade we had a very vital interest in it. What disturbs me is to find that Germany is the largest shareholder in this Bank. What also disturbs be is to find that of the total number of shares issued, of which we hold I think something like 19,772, the United Nations in the aggregate control some 47,000 shares and the Axis nations some 152,000 shares of the Bank for International Settlements. Is there any international trade at present between the United Nations and the Axis nations? If so, I could quite understand that there would be a very good reason for the Bank for International Settlements functioning. But I understood it was prohibited by the law of this country for British nationals to have any dealings with enemy nationals.
The report so far as I have seen it, or extracts from it, to a large extent enunciates views with which I should be very much in agreement. I have no fault to find with some of the views it expresses on after-war trade. I think they are most enlightened views. The only doubt that remains in my mind is how far does Germany, through its German directors, subscribe to those views. I cannot believe for one moment that the German directors and the German interests agree wholeheartedly with the views which have been expressed by the American President of the Bank for International Settlements in this report. Therefore, I think it is the bounden duty of the Chancellor of the

Exchequer to give this House a little guidance, to tell us a little more about the mysteries of this Bank and not merely to wash his hands of the whole affair like Pontius Pilate—as he has apparently done when questioned in this House. I want to know what is happening to the 26,500,000 Reichmarks which belong to this country. It is a strange thing incidentally that we should have our investment in Reichmarks; I should have thought they might have been in something more substantial than that, dollars perhaps, or what about the pound sterling? Where are the Reichmarks invested, and if they are invested in Germany, what is happening to these deposits? It is up to the Chancellor to enlighten this House a little more than he has done.
I do not want to raise any question of a mare's nest. I want to examine the matter from the same angle as my hon.' Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson) did—the cold financial angle, the utility purpose of the Bank for International Settlements—and to dissociate from it sentiment and winning the war and all that sort of thing. Facts are what we want. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been very chary of giving us facts when we have pressed him in this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) have put questions to him. We have extracted some information, but only under great pressure. There used to be another international institution, which also had something to do with Finance, and with morals as well. That was the League of Nations. The League of Nations was founded on an excellent theory, far more excellent than that of the Bank for International Settlements. That theory is in abeyance for the duration of the war, apparently, for very good reasons. If the Bank for International Settlements is to remain for the duration of the war, with our directors on its board, we want to be quite sure that any statement of policy issued by the Bank, whether signed by an American president or subscribed to by the German director, coincides with the policy of His Majesty's Government. I believe there is too much going on at present which this House would repudiate if it knew all the facts. I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as one of his colleagues on the Treasury Bench once said, to "come clean" with the House


and to tell us something of the facts, about which the House and the country must, otherwise, remain in darkness unless they turn to the German newspapers.

Mr. Ellis Smith: This is a democratic assembly, where we can pool our ideas, in order to reach mutually-accepted conclusions. In the development of democracy in this country, we have been prepared to give one another our pledge to do our duty in accordance with our understanding of that development. But to be addressed in the superior manner adopted by one hon. Member today is not conducive to that democratic method of debate. The hon. Member spoke strongly, and I want to speak equally strongly. I am relatively young, and yet for the second time in my life we are involved in a world war. Let me assure the hon. Member and all who agree with him that we represent forces in this country and in the world at large that are gathering strength. We have had the benefit of the educational facilities now available to the ordinary people of this country. We cannot go into this matter to-day, but many of us would welcome an opportunity of threshing it out with people in any part of this House who adopt that superior attitude. I understand that the German Press reported on the Bank for International Settlements before we knew anything about it in this country. If that is so, this House is vitally concerned. I and other hon. Members received a letter from the Chancellor, dated 3rd October, 1942. I do not want to read the whole letter, but here are the relevant passages:
It is the fact that neither the Treasury nor the Bank of England have received or have seen a copy, but I find that the Ministry of Economic Warfare had one. This is the only copy that: has been received so far as I have been able to discover, and it has only just been brought to my notice.
I readily accept that, but it calls for some explanation. It is an indication that in the fourth year of the war effort there is not the co-ordination between the Departments there ought to be and that there is a certain amount of inefficiency, and it certainly calls for an explanation. This report gives, on the back of it, the names of the directors, and only four of these can be described as neutrals in this war. In addition, several of the executive officers of this Bank for International Settlements are bound to be opposed to

this war. Perhaps the Chancellor will take that cynical smile off his face. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] It is time that that was said, because we have had to put up with it too much during the past 12 months when considering questions, as many of my hon. Friends will agree. We are entitled to ask whether these people are meeting in any way and whether, if it is true that the directors are not themselves meeting, their representatives are meeting, and are communications taking place between the Nazi Powers and the representatives of our own people? On page 5 of the report the President says:
I its activities the Rank has constantly adhered to this principles of scrupulous neutrality.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman or any Member of this House whether he believes that. There can be no neutrality with the Axis; therefore we ought not to be associated with them in this way. We should not even allow our names to be published along with the names of Nazis in this report.

Sir P. Hannon: Would the hon. Gentleman say in what respect there has been a departure from the neutrality defined by the President?

Mr. Smith: I will deal with that later I find from the report that the French Government have paid as occupation costs an amount exceeding all the budgetary expenditure of France. How can there be strict neutrality on the part of representatives of a country which is responsible for carrying out a policy of that kind? The Nazis have broken every international obligation, and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer has answered Questions in this House to the effect that he believes that they observe the strictest neutrality. We all heard the recording of the speech of the Prime Minister last night. It was a scathing indictment of the Nazis. It was a good speech. But how can we applaud a speech of that kind and at the same time try and reconcile this report? How can we applaud a speech of that kind and yet at the same time say that this Bank has observed the strictest neutrality?
An answer which the Chancellor has given to a Question on this subject was:
I am satisfied that the Bank conducts its affairs on the basis of strict neutrality.


There cannot be strict neutrality of any kind where the Nazis are involved, and it needs some understanding, and will need some explaining to the people of this country, why we should be associated with a Bank that is dominated by the Nazis or with representatives of the country dominated by them. The Bank for International Settlements gave us a nasty blow in 1939. Many of my hon. Friends will remember the great controversy that raged in the House just prior to the handing-over of the Czechoslovakian gold reserves. I suppose some people would describe that as maintaining strict neutrality. A study of the Bank's report facilitates an examination of the British economic position, and in a war in which we are fighting for everything that is worth while we should not be associated, as I have said, with an institution that is dominated by enemy representatives and which facilitates an examination of the British economic position. We ought immediately to withdraw from it.
I remember a former President of the Board of Trade introducing the Bill which made it illegal for industrial concerns to maintain their relationships with enemy countries. Members on the other side who are directors of industrial concerns remember that immediately on the outbreak of war all relations of an industrial character had to be broken off. We all remember how we suffered as the result of the pre-war cartel arrangements with certain big concerns in Europe.
It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Mr. Ellis Smith: We are still suffering as a result of these arrangements, particularly as regards aircraft. How can the Chancellor reconcile the introduction of such a Bill as that with the statement that our financial arrangements should be maintained through this Bank? I remember in 1936 the jeers and sneers we had to contend with when we raised a certain issue regarding Ribbentrop. Now it is obvious who was right. The Anglo-German Naval Treaty and the activities of Ribbentrop were a victory for German diplomacy just as this is a victory for

German diplomacy, and in my view it should be repudiated in unequivocal terms. I thought I was the last speaker before the Chancellor, but as I believe other Members want to address the House, I will conclude by saying this: After the war we shall be faced with a serious economic situation throughout the world. In the view of the movement to which I belong and the people in the country, the only way forward will be by a policy of economic co-operation. That policy ought to be based upon an understanding that is being worked out now by the United Nations. There is a conflict between a policy of that kind and the policy contained in this report. Had there been more time I would have dealt with this matter in more detail, but I want to say, in conclusion, that I believe the people of this country, when they know that we are still parties to the Bank for International Settlements, will be satisfied with only one action, and that is the complete severance of our relations with this Bank on which the Nazis are represented.

Mr. Loftus: I intervene in the Debate for two reasons. In the first place, I want to put a point to which I hope my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to reply. We have been told that this report was drawn up by the President of the Bank for International Settlements, an American citizen. I understand that the term of office of the President of the Bank is nearing completion, and I want to put this point. Supposing that his successor is a neutral or a belligerent whose sympathies are heavily with the Nazi system, and supposing that the next report is drawn up by such a President merely as Nazi propaganda, what will be our position then, having two directors closely associated with the British Government on the Board of the Bank?
I had not intended to intervene in the Debate. I have not, for a certain reason, had the opportunity of speaking in this Chamber for some six months, and I did not intend to speak just yet, but I am compelled to do so by the attack made upon me by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson). It was quite unprovoked. I was sitting here quietly and then simply intervened to ask one question of the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson), and the hon. Member for Hastings suddenly


attacked me. I cannot understand why. He is a bank director. In my speeches in this House, and in my writings, I have gone out of my way to testify to the ability and integrity of the management of the joint stock banks, The hon. Member accused me of being an advocate of the solution known as the Douglas Social Credit system. In my first speech in the House I made it clear that I did not advocate that solution, and since then I have made that clear in speech after speech. Then I challenged the hon. Member to withdraw or substantiate his charge. He attempted to do so. How? He said I was vice-president of the Economic Reform Club, which advocated the Douglas Social Credit system. I share the vice-presidency of the Economic Reform Club with distinguished Members of the Upper House—Lord Northbourne, Lord Sempill—and also with Lady Snowden, and others. The constitution of that Club specifically lays down that it does not advocate any particular solution. I told the hon. Member I have been a Member of the House longer than he has. I have never known an hon. Member who made a charge and who, when challenged to substantiate or withdraw it, has not withdrawn or definitely proved his charge. I must say that I am surprised that the hon. Member did not behave in accordance with the usual great traditions of this generous House.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am sure that we all welcome back the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus). While I do not want to intervene in the controversy, I know that he has had a very severe time during his absence from the House, and I wish to say how glad we all are to see him back again.
I welcome the opportunity of saying a few words on this matter, not because I think the country is disturbed about it, but because I think that if the reports of the Debate were circulated without any reply from me, there might well be some misapprehensions about the position. What we have to consider to-day is whether any circumstances have arisen which should cause us to sever or alter our association with the Bank for International Settlements as at present constituted and conducted. What is the present position as I know it and as I am advised? Since the outbreak of the war, having regard to

difficulties which must naturally arise from the constitution of a Bank of this kind, the conduct and control of the Bank have been and are to-day in the sole hands of the President of the Bank, an American citizen. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is he a partner in Higginsons? "] I could not say. He has occupied this position for nearly three years.

Mr. Mander: Is there not a German manager?

Sir K. Wood: There may be a German manager, but the conduct and control of the Bank have been his sole responsibility and duty. This gentleman has our complete confidence. We believe that, all the way through, he has adopted a policy of strict neutrality, and we believe he has honestly and faithfully pursued and effectively achieved that policy. No transactions have taken place since the war between the Bank of England, acting as a member of the Bank, and the enemy central banks forming part of the institution. There have been no business relations whatever between them. The Bank to-day in fact only carries on what may be called routine business, and the ordinary transactions which take place having regard to the circumstances of to-day. The Bank is so situated that no transaction has taken or can take place under the present arrangements which would confer any economic or financial advantage on a belligerent nation to the detriment of another.

Questions have been put to me regarding the directors, the possibility of conversations between them and matters of that kind. Since the outbreak of the war the directors have never met, and the British directors have no contacts direct or indirect or any association whatever with the enemy directors. What is the position of this country? I am only concerned with this matter from the point of view of the best interests of this country. We have considerable and substantial interests and rights in the Bank under the International Trust Agreements between the various Governments. There is the British deposit amounting to between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000. The Bank of England also have a shareholding of about £4,000,000, of which 25 per cent. has been called up. Our association with the Bank obviously brings no economic or financial advantage to the enemy. It is certain, as


I said in answer to a Question to-day, that Germany pays interest to the Bank, and from the Bank's assets, of which that interest forms a part, we receive a dividend.

Why has this matter arisen again at the present time? It has been going on for two or three years. As I understand it, it is because of the issue of the recent report of the Bank. The hare was started by a writter in one of the financial papers, who obviously could never have seen the report as a whole, suggesting that the report would create a great stir in political circles, that it was wrong for British and Allied nationals to be associated with Germany and other Axis Powers in elaborating a report on post-war conditions, and that by so doing the British directors had considerably exceeded their powers. The same writer also found—and I think he is the only one who has been successful, perhaps more successful than my hon. Friend who opened the Debate—allusions in the report which could be said to favour Germany. I am glad to observe that no other paper has adopted such a view. I do not think there is any justification for any of those statements. There has been no political stir except what my hon. Friend has been able to accomplish today. The directors have had no association whatever with this report. As appears on the face of it, the report is that of the President alone. It is his sole responsibility, and no one else has had any concern with it.

I had an opportunity, as have hon. Members, of looking at the contents of the report. I should say, speaking generally, that there is nothing exciting or exceptional in it and certainly nothing to which exception can be taken. One can take passages here and there into which anyone who wanted to make trouble might possibly introduce some meaning which is critical of this country. On the other hand, it might very well be said that this report contains passages which propound ideals and objects which are diametrically opposed to German objects and policy. I was interested to observe this morning the comments of one of the well-known writers in the "News Chronicle." He said that he had had access to a long summary of the document, and wished to say a word about it. He recites how at the beginning of the report the American President at the Bank stated that the Bank had constantly adhered to the

principle of scrupulous neutrality which it laid down for itself in the autumn of 1939, and says that on reading the extracts available to him he can detect in the document no signs whatever of even the slightest departure from this attitude of scrupulous neutrality. I think anyone who looked at it from an unprejudiced point of view would say that that was a very fair statement of the position. In answer to my hon. Friend opposite, who put the question to me, I certainly see nothing in the report—and I do not know whether he does; I do not think he does—which would cause us to vary or to alter our previous policy in connection with the issue of this report of the Bank.

I do not think it is material, but I shall be glad to answer the question about the issue of the report to the Press. As I understand it, the Bank for International Settlements, in accordance with their normal practice, gave out to the Press in Switzerland a summary of the report on 4th September. I suppose they held the usual Press conference and that all the Press were there, and I take it that it was as the outcome of that conference that the German Press reported the matter in their papers. I think that whatever correspondents of the British Press were there did not see that there was anything very exciting in this report, and, so far as I am aware, they gave no publicity to it. Of course, that was a matter entirely for them. Having read the report myself, I can understand that serious readers, those who are interested in a matter of this kind, would naturally prefer to see the whole of the document. At any rate, what happened was that they had the usual Press conference, and our own Press representatives there evidently did not see that sinister light in the report which other people have seen. As to copies of the report reaching this country, again I do not think that is a matter of very great importance. I did state in the House, what I understood to be the case, that no copy of this report had reached this country. At any rate, I had not seen it, and the Bank of England had not seen it.

Mr. Stokes: Price, Water-house and Company had seen it.

Sir K. Wood: It turned out afterwards that one of our Departments had a copy of it. They had not informed me of the fact, thinking, I expect, that I had a copy when I had not one. There is nothing


very exciting about that, either. In order that any doubts on this matter may be quieted, if it is possible to quiet them, let me say that I am informed that at about the same time as the Press summary was given out by them, the Bank for International Settlements posted copies of the report to this country. Some few weeks later they posted copies to Germany, the intention being that the copies should arrive at both central banks at about the same time. I hope nobody is going to complain about that. It only means that the post has been slow, delayed or something of that kind. In fact, the copies that were sent to the Bank have not yet arrived.
I was asked about the shareholding of the Bank. I do not think that that has any relevance to our attitude, although we are concerned with the preservation of our own assets. I gave an estimate, on the basis of the original distribution of the shares, that the Axis interest would be in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent. Since the war some of the central banks have been transferred to this country and the status of others is doubtful. Therefore, estimates can legitimately vary on this matter. The exact proportion, whether it is 50 per cent., 60 per cent. or 70 per cent., is, from my point of view, immaterial. In fact, the shareholders have no rights of control under the constitution of this Bank, in the sense that they are not at the general meeting; and the general meeting does not elect the Board and does not control the policy of the Bank.
My last few words to those who are interested in this matter are that, in my judgment, nothing would be gained and much might be lost if we attempted to sever our relationship with the Bank, as at present controlled and constituted. The neutrality of the Bank has been maintained by the control of the President and by our membership. It might very well go if we went. If we were able to withdraw our directors, it would obviously be easy for the persons concerned, particularly if the American President of the Bank were to disappear, to call a meeting of the directors and for the assets to be dealt with very differently from the way in which they are being dealt with to-day. I can, at any rate, say that if we were to withdraw, the position of the President would undoubtedly be affected. There

would be every prospect then of the whole of the assets of this Bank falling entirely into the hands of the Axis. There is no way, under the constitution or otherwise, by which we could ask the Swiss to look after our interests in this connection.
There is another aspect of the matter which I hope the House will consider. Some of our smaller European Allies, in particular some of the countries occupied by Germany, might very well be liable to suffer loss, in consequence of our withdrawal. They might have their interests imperilled, just as we should have our interests imperilled, if we withdrew, quite apart from the possible loss of the Treasury interest in the Annuity Fund and the shareholding of the Bank. Under these circumstances, the Bank might very well become an Axis-controlled institution. The Germans would be able to put pressure upon it which would imperil all its assets, and Germany might find means of using them for her own war purposes—not only those invested in Germany, but those in other countries, and our retirement would in fact remove the most effective safeguard that the Bank's substantial holdings in Europe will continue to be administered according to strictly neutral principles and for strictly neutral purposes, and we would run the risk of a hitherto neutral institution of not inconsiderable wealth becoming an enemy institution with all its consequences.
I would only say this, in conclusion, to my hon Friends: I have emphasised throughout that this is our policy, so long as the Bank is constituted and conducted as at present—and I need hardly assure the House that I have no interest other than to see that those of our country and our Allies are served—and I will see this matter is carefully watched. If there were any important changes or alterations, the matter would undoubtedly be reviewed again, and any decision that might be arrived at would have to be arrived at in the: light of any new position that might arise. I feel quite confident myself that in present circumstances we are serving our best interests and those of our Allies in the policy we have taken up, and cenainly nothing has happened, either in the report or in the events of the last few days, in my judgment, to make us alter our present policy and the way we conduct our affairs in relation to it.

Mr. G. Strauss: May I ask one short question, because the Chancellor apparently contradicted himself in his statement, and I think we want to be clear? I understood that he said the deposits at the Bank earn interest in Germany or elsewhere and that that interest helps to pay Great Britain interest on our deposits at the Bank. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

I am sorry if I am mistaken. That would be in contradiction to the answer he gave.

Sir K. Wood: If the hon. Member will put a Question down, I will certainly answer it.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.